[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Jonathan Lord: I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 0, Noes 46.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to draw the House’s attention to the worrying reports in several newspapers today that the number of badgers being shot in the Somerset badger cull area is considerably lower than the target of 2,000 set by the Government. Scientists have warned us that there is a severe risk that bovine tuberculosis will become worse in badgers and cattle if the cull is not carried out properly—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady proceeds, may I ask her—I understand the importance of the matter in her mind—what the point of order for me is? Perhaps she will indicate that first.

Mary Creagh: I will do so, Mr Speaker. Ministers have failed to answer the questions I have tabled about the number of badgers culled in the cull areas. Can you therefore use your good offices to ensure that the House is updated at the earliest opportunity after the conference recess?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady knows the premium I attach from the Chair to timely and substantive responses to parliamentary questions. Her point of order on the matter will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. I rather imagine the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will know of it within a matter of minutes. I very much hope that the sorts of information she seeks can be provided before very long, especially in view of the extreme topicality of the matter that she has raised—I thank her for doing so.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Second Reading

Jonathan Lord: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill is brief and to the point—it has just two clauses. It seeks to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that foreign and Commonwealth citizens in the forces who wish to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are not disadvantaged because of time served overseas. In order to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1), a person must have been resident in the United Kingdom for the previous five years. The Secretary of State has the discretion to disregard time spent outside the United Kingdom during that period, but an applicant must, in all cases, have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period. That means that foreign and Commonwealth citizens in the armed forces who are posted overseas may have to wait longer than those who remain in the United Kingdom.

Edward Leigh: I have been trying to understand the Bill. Is the key moment the precise moment at the end of the five years? Is that the law under the 1981 Act? It is unclear to me, and I am sure that my hon. Friend can explain it to the House.

Jonathan Lord: The key point is that under the 1981 Act a foreigner or Commonwealth citizen applying for naturalisation—the pass to British citizenship—has to have been in the UK on the exact date five years prior to them making that application. Of course, it is invidious that a foreign or Commonwealth soldier serving Queen and country in our armed forces overseas, perhaps even in a conflict zone, should not be able to make such an application when other soldiers based in the UK or other men and women living in the UK would be able to do so.

Mel Stride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important Bill before the House. Does he know how many armed forces personnel have fallen foul in the past of what appears to be an unfortunate anomaly in the 1981 Act?

Jonathan Lord: It is indeed an anomaly. Currently, more than 9,000 foreign and Commonwealth persons are serving in our armed forces. I am sure that everyone in the House would wish to pay tribute to them for the wonderful work they do, putting themselves in danger for the sake of our national security—and for the sake of international security, too. Our armed forces do not go just into conflict or act defensively: they also go into very difficult areas and try to bring peace.
	The Bill will probably affect only a few hundred people a year at most. Not everyone of foreign or Commonwealth nationality who serves in our armed forces wishes to naturalise as a British citizen, but for those who do, I hope that the House will support the idea that they should not be discriminated against because of the anomaly that my hon. Friend so perceptively outlines.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend refers, rightly, to the sense of discrimination that some members of our armed forces will feel at having fallen foul of this anomaly. Does he foresee the possibility of an amendment in Committee to do something for those who have fallen foul of that particular aspect of the naturalisation requirements by expediting their applications compared to those who were not caught by that anomaly?

Jonathan Lord: I am reminded by people with much more experience in the House than I have that it is unwise to accept unnecessary amendments to private Members’ Bills. The bar is already high enough for getting such a Bill on to the statute book. That said, it is an issue that we should look at. The key point is that the Bill would remedy the deficit that we have identified, and any armed services personnel from foreign or Commonwealth countries would not suffer such discrimination.

Christopher Chope: As I understand it, the Government said in the Queen’s Speech that they would introduce an immigration Bill, which could include nationality issues. Surely this proposal would be much better suited to that Bill, as we could then have a full range of amendments, including the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) referred.

Jonathan Lord: The key point is that the Bill would remedy a simple problem. I know, from having talked to the Minister, that the planned nationality Bill will have specific needs in mind, and he would not necessarily wish to take on board this aspect of immigration issues in case it perhaps encouraged more mischievous amendments and additions.

Guy Opperman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, as it covers an issue that we should clearly pursue under the armed forces covenant. Does he have any information about support from the various Army charities for this proposal?

Jonathan Lord: I am pleased to say that most of the major Army charities, which do such wonderful work supporting our service personnel, our ex-service personnel and their families, are very supportive of the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I attend Remembrance day services and rattle tins for the Royal British Legion—the local branches in Woking and other areas of Surrey are hugely supportive of the Bill.
	Veterans Aid, an important charity in this area, has said of the Bill:
	“We warmly welcome any initiative that removes obstacles to those who have served this country with honour from settling here legally and have campaigned on this issue. Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign & Commonwealth servicemen and women disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy that is demonstrably at odds with the spirit of the Military Covenant. This was an injustice and we applaud the Government and Jonathan Lord for listening. We still have many cases in being but this will definitely help us move things forward for quite a few of our clients.”

Christopher Chope: I am sorry to return to my earlier intervention, but if this change is supported by the Government, why do they not bring this measure forward in their immigration Bill? Then we would be able to test whether this very
	narrow Bill is too narrow and should be extended to a wider range of people. For example, a constituent of mine married a Russian citizen and they have been working in Russia in the UK interest for 18 years. Because they have been working outside the country, that lady cannot get British citizenship without coming back to the UK.

Jonathan Lord: I think I answered that point clearly before. I am very happy with the narrow definition of the Bill. Its aims are clear to everyone, and it would do what it says on the tin. It is welcomed by military and veterans charities, and I believe it is welcomed across the House.

Harriett Baldwin: I hope that the Bill will make progress, but can my hon. Friend make it clear that when we are talking about an exception for someone who is not in the UK at the beginning of the five-year period after which they apply for British citizenship, the reason for them not being here would have to be that they were serving in our armed forces? Is not that the difference between the Bill and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)?

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is absolutely the case. It is my understanding that the Government and all other parties will support the Bill, given the cross-party support for the armed forces covenant, and agree that the issue is best addressed through a private Member’s Bill. I do not know exactly what Bills on immigration and nationality the Government intend to introduce. That is a matter for the Government and as Back Benchers we will have to wait and see, but I am extremely happy and honoured to try to pilot the Bill through the House and, with cross-party support, hopefully on to the statute book.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend says that an immigration Bill is a matter for the Government, but it seems, by the way he is introducing his Bill, that his Bill is a matter for the Government too.

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes a fair point—the Bill has the complete support of the Government. It is also in keeping with measures the previous Government were starting to talk about, and with the will of the House as expressed by Committees and sub-committees. There is a wish to ensure that the armed services covenant is not just fine words. Where there are anomalies, with service personnel or ex-service personnel being disadvantaged, they must be put right as soon as possible. If the Bill progresses, we will be able to do that before the introduction of any Government legislation on nationality and immigration. That is surely to be welcomed.

Margot James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. Can he reassure me that the Government support his proposals? I have read the annual report published in 2012 on the progress of the military covenant, and it seems that the Government are doing a great deal to remove areas of discrimination, and even putting in special measures for the armed forces. It would, therefore, seem anomalous for this area not to be dealt with as part of our ongoing commitment to the military covenant.

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech, but he is on the record as saying:
	“It is simply wrong that any member of our armed forces should have to wait longer to gain British citizenship just because, on a specific date five years before applying, he or she was posted overseas protecting our country. Making this change was a priority commitment under the Armed Forces Covenant and I am delighted to support this Bill which will ensure that service men and women are not disadvantaged.”
	Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), it is not just Veterans Aid and the Royal British Legion that support the Bill. The Army Families Federation supports Army families, serving both personnel and ex-service personnel. It said:
	“This legislation will make a big difference to the many soldiers and their spouses who are currently prohibited from applying for Citizenship because they were serving overseas or were on operations at the start of the 5 year residential period. The current rule has been disproportionately disadvantaging members of HM Forces and their families for many years, and the AFF is fully supportive of the proposed changes”.
	I welcome that support from one of our most important charities.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am gratified that a number of military charities clearly support the Bill. I am not aware of any military-focused charities that are against it. Will he confirm that, to the best of his knowledge, that is the case?

Jonathan Lord: I am not aware that any charities, military or otherwise, are against the Bill. I am sure that if any charities that are unaware of the Bill were to listen to the debate—which I hope will have cross-party support—they would also be convinced of its merit, alongside our wonderful military charities.
	The Bill will give the Secretary of State the discretion to waive the requirement that an applicant for naturalisation should have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the five-year residence period as laid out under the 1981 Act. This will apply only to those who are, or have been, members of the armed forces. This will ensure that all foreign and Commonwealth citizens who are serving, or have served, in the forces are able to apply for naturalisation on equal terms, regardless of whether they were posted in the UK or abroad.

Christopher Chope: Will the Bill have retrospective effect?

Jonathan Lord: The Bill will apply to cases from now on. By definition, those applying for citizenship under the naturalisation rule have to have been in the UK five years before, so it is definitely for all cases going forward. I hope the Minister will help me by ensuring that we know about any potential retrospective action.

Mel Stride: Just to clarify, where an individual has fallen foul of the anomaly under the 1981 Act and has subsequently left the country, and is therefore not in the country at the point of an application the day after the Bill is passed, would the clock have to start again, or would it be enough that they would have qualified had the anomaly not existed?

Jonathan Lord: The Bill gives the Secretary of State more discretion than he has had hitherto, but we are trying to look forward more than we are trying to look back. We cannot remedy all anomalies, but I am sure that the Minister will have a view on how the Secretary of State would use that discretion for past cases.
	To apply for naturalisation under section 6(1) of the 1981 Act, a person must have been resident in the United Kingdom for the previous five years. While the Secretary of State has the discretion to disregard time spent outside the UK during that period, an applicant currently must, in all cases, have been in the UK at the beginning of that five-year period. That means that foreign and Commonwealth citizens serving in our armed forces who are posted overseas may have to wait longer than those who remain in the UK before being able to naturalise as British citizens, and that cannot be right.
	The Bill implements a Government commitment in the armed forces covenant 2011 for new legislation to be introduced to enable foreign and Commonwealth service personnel to be exempted from the requirement to be in the UK at the start of that residential period for naturalisation as a British citizen, if in service on that date. Clause 2 sets out clearly the territorial extent of the Bill: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories.
	Both clauses would come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is not anticipated that the Bill will lead to additional public expenditure. With regard to public sector manpower, no changes are expected to staffing at the Home Office, which is the Department responsible for processing applications for naturalisation. The Bill is not regarded as having any regulatory impact, nor will it lead to costs or savings for business, public or civil society organisations, regulators or consumers. It is a pleasure to introduce the Bill to the House this morning. I pay tribute to the work of the Home Affairs (Armed Forces Covenant) Sub-Committee, which mentioned the desirability of the measure in October 2010. It has the benefit of Government support and, I very much hope, cross-party support, too.
	The enshrinement of the armed forces covenant into UK law in 2011 was a good moment in the three years that I have served as Member of Parliament for Woking, and I am sure that many Members across the House feel the same. The Government and Parliament have a moral obligation to their servicemen and women, who are asked to risk their lives for our country. That obligation extends well beyond the time when each of them leaves the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. Parliament chose to enshrine two key principles into law: first, that it is desirable that members or former members of the armed forces suffer no disadvantages arising from their time served in the military; and secondly, that special provision for them may be justified in certain circumstances. These are fundamental principles that reflect our country’s high esteem and value for the military and its personnel, and the important and sometimes difficult and dangerous work they do.
	I am fortunate to have the Pirbright barracks in my constituency, which, with the arrival of the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, will shortly have an additional 600 service personnel and their families. A guardsman who has served with the battalion for the last 10 years will have been on tours to Northern Ireland, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo
	and Afghanistan, which will have been interspersed with firefighting, training and exercises all over the world. In addition, they will have carried out state ceremonial and public duties, demonstrating the busy nature of our modern armed forces. Indeed, the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards has done two tours of Bosnia and two tours of Afghanistan. They are brave servicemen and women.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the brave men and women in our armed forces in his constituency who perform such services for our country. Earlier he mentioned their role in defending and fighting for our country, but do not a number of the examples he has given show that, equally, they are important in bringing peace to many people outside our country? For that reason, as well as the service they do for our country, we should treat them fairly and decently.

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not just the citizens of this country who owe our armed forces a great debt of gratitude, but many citizens in warzones and, occasionally, those affected in times of famine or by an earthquake. We salute all the hard work, dedication and bravery of our armed forces personnel.
	It will be a great honour to have the Welsh Guards come to Pirbright, but the Pirbright facility also includes the largest initial training site in the Army, which trains all female recruits over the age of 17 and the majority of male recruits. The facilities at the centre—I have seen them myself—are superb and have benefited much from recent upgrades. There are new classrooms, an education centre, a swimming pool, a well-equipped gym, all-weather outdoor sports pitches, and medical and rehabilitation facilities. It was a pleasure to visit the Army training camp and see the wonderful work done there. Our young people, aged 17 or 18, go there as ordinary citizens and come out, only a few weeks later, as members of our armed forces, trained to a high standard. I was extremely impressed with everything that I saw and learnt there.
	Indeed, unlike some of the visits that we occasionally make to places in our constituencies, my visit was organised in true military fashion. I had to report at 10:00 hours. Every five minutes of the day was marked out for my instruction and there were drivers on hand in case of inclement weather. It was really quite impressive. If the Army inculcate that sort of spit-and-polish attitude into our young people, they will come out not just as potential worthy fighters in our armed forces, but as better, more upright and more organised citizens, which bodes well for them and the future of our country.

Harriett Baldwin: This is an interesting anecdote. I am proud to have participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme since I was elected. On visiting a base—which should perhaps remain nameless—I was given athletic clothes, including a very short pair of shorts, and asked to take the fitness test. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me as to whether he had a similar experience when he visited the base in his constituency?

Mr Speaker: Order. The personal experience of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is undoubtedly an enervating one for her and of great
	interest to the House, but I know that in responding to the intervention the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) will not be tempted to dilate upon the matter, but will focus his attention on the content of the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill.

Jonathan Lord: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I am interested to hear of my hon. Friend’s experiences I was told to bring muddy boots, but I am pleased to say that there was no fitness test and my muddy boots were not needed.
	Pirbright, along with our other Army training camps, has a big role to play in helping to make our troops the finest trained in the world. As their representative in the mother of Parliaments, I wish to know that they will be treated well by the Government, the laws of the land and all our public services, both during and after their time served.

Margot James: My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully about the sacrifices that our armed forces make and the way in which they risk their lives in conflict around the world. Does he agree that they also make an enormous contribution to society in emergencies? I am thinking in particular about the Olympics last year, when the country was let down by a private company that was going to provide security. We had to reach for our armed forces, which were there without delay. Indeed, in many cases, personnel had to sacrifice their annual leave to go and serve the country in that important endeavour.

Jonathan Lord: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which she makes extremely well. The armed forces are at the service of our country and its citizens, and they never, ever seem to let us down.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He is right to stress the dedication, excellence, training and commitment of those in our armed forces, and although they are well looked after in terms of remuneration, salary and pay, they are not very, very well looked after. Is not that, along with their dedication, yet another reason why they should be looked after properly in the way that his Bill seeks to do?

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes an excellent and important point.
	I have invited the troops stationed at Pirbright to come and have tours of the House—I am sure everyone else has similar experiences—and have participated in seminars, and so on. When they next visit me, I know that they will be extremely pleased—and perhaps even a little proud of their Member of Parliament—that this Bill has been introduced. That is another reason why I hope the House will support it today.
	We have the armed forces covenant, but there is still progress to be made on the way in which we treat our armed forces personnel. However, the Government are to be commended for the action that they have taken since May 2010, and I am pleased that the Minister for Immigration is here to support this contribution to the development of the law on the obligations underwritten by the armed forces covenant.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend explain the ambit of the term “armed forces”? Will it, for example, cover the support staff, engineers and technicians who support our armed forces? Let us take as an example the base at Akrotiri. How many of the people working on that base will be covered by the Bill?

Jonathan Lord: It is my understanding that all those serving in the armed forces will come under the aegis of the Bill, but they will have to be members of the armed forces; it will not cover a local cook or a local cleaner supporting a barracks.

Harriett Baldwin: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the Bill will cover members of the Army Reserve?

Jonathan Lord: My understanding is that it would cover such people, but I look to the Minister to give us a little more clarification on that point. The key thing is that a person will have to be serving in our armed forces to be covered. It is my understanding that Army reservists are very much a part of our armed forces. I have to say, however, that we would be unlikely to find foreign or Commonwealth citizens serving in our reserve forces. They tend to join the full armed forces, rather than the reserves. It is a full-time vocation and a full-time job, and we want to recognise their hard work and dedication.

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend clarify what will happen when the Bill has become an Act? Someone will have to have been a fully fledged member of the armed forces for five years, but it will not matter where they were during the five years before they apply for naturalisation. Will they, at that point, have an automatic right to become a British citizen unless they have misbehaved? I am sure that that is right, but I was unable to find that fact in the Library.

Jonathan Lord: At that point, the person would follow the normal naturalisation process for citizenship. The key point is that a member of the armed services will be able to apply even if they have been posted abroad.

Edward Leigh: I presume, though, that once they have done their five years and applied for naturalisation, they will pretty much have an absolute right to become a British citizen. Has my hon. Friend discussed this interesting point with the Minister?

Jonathan Lord: I have a large amount of notes relating to the naturalisation process and all the disqualifications that could block the path to British citizenship of a member of the armed forces. Factors such as dishonourable discharge and criminality could lead to disqualification, along with all the other kinds of things that one would expect a potential citizen of this country to be judged on, whether they were a soldier or a civilian.

Guy Opperman: The key point is that time spent overseas has placed people at a disadvantage. The new legislation could well apply to some of those at the barracks at Albemarle in Northumberland. The regiment that is now stationed there is moving to another part of the country, and a new regiment is coming in from Germany. Some members of that regiment could be covered by the Bill. The time that they have spent overseas is the key factor.

Jonathan Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the key point of the Bill with a good local example of how it will work.

Mark Harper: I should like to assist the House on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I ask him to hold on to the thought about naturalisation requirements, because I shall touch on them in my remarks at the end of the debate. I shall clarify how the current rules work, and how we expect them to work in the future. I hope that that will be helpful.

Jonathan Lord: We look forward to hearing the Minister later.

Margot James: I am sorry to bring my hon. Friend back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I wonder what his view is of another anomaly in the same area. If a member of the armed forces seeking British citizenship had contravened the law while in the service of our country but not in a way that would even have merited a police caution if the offence had been committed in civil society, that would be a ground for refusal. Does he agree that that seems rather unfair?

Jonathan Lord: I hesitate to use up all our available time discussing the regulations. As I have said, I have notes on the naturalisation routes to citizenship for ordinary civilians and for armed services personnel. The clear intention of the Home Office and our immigration services is to ensure that there is a level playing field, and that the armed services are not disadvantaged in relation to civilians. I believe that that is what the House would like to see. Of course, cases of dishonourable discharge or criminality would count against a member of the armed forces, just as breaking the law would disadvantage a civilian seeking to become a citizen of this country. The same rules will apply regarding the amount of money a person will need to earn in order to support himself, and his wife and his family if he has one. Those rules will be the same for armed services personnel as for civilians from a foreign or Commonwealth background. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. The Home Office and our immigration services take a fair-handed view in this regard, but the major anomaly in the British Nationality Act 1981 has to be put right.

Mel Stride: Is it not significant that when someone applying for naturalisation has not previously fallen foul of the anomaly in the 1981 Act, the public and Parliament have not generally been overly vexed by the rules? My hon. Friend’s Bill will simply bring those who do fall foul of the anomaly into line with those who do not, so the new arrangements will presumably be acceptable, as they are already acceptable as currently applied to others.

Jonathan Lord: I largely accept that point. The important thing is to ensure that our armed services personnel are not disadvantaged. I am sure that previous armed forces personnel have been able to apply, but it has taken them longer than the armed forces personnel who were situated in the UK during the relevant part of their service five years before, or indeed than others living in this country
	who were not serving in the armed forces. It is quite wrong for armed service personnel to be disadvantaged in that way.
	Although the Bill has a rather grandiose title—the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill—which might initially have led Members to think that I was proposing some grand and far-reaching changes to the citizenship or nationality regulations for members of the armed forces, I hope that it is now clear that my intentions are far humbler. This is a small but sensible Bill.

Margot James: I think my hon. Friend is being too modest. Although the changes are narrow in scope and in terms of the number of people affected, these provisions will directly affect, as I think my hon. Friend mentioned, some 200 serving members of our armed forces and their families. For those individuals, I would suggest, the changes that my hon. Friend is proposing are indeed far ranging and far reaching.

Jonathan Lord: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, with which I of course agree absolutely. For those families affected—my hon. Friend is absolutely right that 200 is a realistic estimate—this Bill will make all the difference in the world. While we in this mother of Parliaments are incredibly proud to serve our constituents, the reason many people want to serve in our armed forces is that they know that this country has, over many years, served the cause of decency, democracy and the rule of law. If they are willing to put potentially their lives on the line for this country and all that it stands for, I am sure that they would be equally proud, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said, of the day on which they and their families took British citizenship.

Guy Opperman: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) said, does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a matter of the families? Most of the soldiers I meet and talk to in the barracks in my constituency say that their true loyalty lies not just to their family, but to the regiment and their battalion. I suggest that from the Army point of view, this is about not just the individual soldier and his family, but about the corps of the battalion and an individual soldier who is not a British citizen feeling part of the unit. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Jonathan Lord: Yes, absolutely. The regiment, the battalion and the way in which our armed forces tend to be arranged into smaller units, many of which have a distinguished history behind them and a wonderful record of service ahead of them, are all very important. That should make us reflect on how the relevant armed service personnel must think when they fill out a form and find out that they are disadvantaged because they were posted abroad five years ago in the service of their regiment or battalion. The whole ethos of this country, the battalion, the regiment and unit goes out of the window the moment these people put pen to paper on that form and realise that, by a quirk of bureaucracy and a small defect in the British Nationality Act 1981, they are at a disadvantage in comparison with other service personnel who served here or, indeed, any other ordinary citizens with a foreign or Commonwealth
	background who are able to go through the process of naturalisation and citizenship. What a terrible shock that must be for those people and their families.

Mel Stride: The terrible shock to which my hon. Friend refers is presumably exacerbated when someone who was away five years to the day prior to making an application was actually on the front line overseas, perhaps fighting in extremely dangerous circumstances and laying their life on the line at a time when others who are not caught by this anomaly in the 1981 Act might have been back here in the UK in far safer and more desirable circumstances.

Jonathan Lord: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is the key point to which this House needs to address itself. What my hon. Friend describes would be a travesty, and I am sure that it has happened to service personnel posted abroad. I read out the example of the overseas service of soldiers from 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, who will shortly be based in my constituency. As I said, they have seen service overseas in Bosnia, Afghanistan and in many other conflict zones. It is quite invidious that when it comes to their path to citizenship, they should be penalised for their service in such dangerous territories at such difficult times.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend describes a situation in which it seems as if almost everybody in the Welsh Guards is a foreigner. Surely we are talking about very small numbers of people. At a time when our armed forces are being reduced in number and it is becoming more difficult for people to get into the armed forces, should not the policy of the Government be to ensure, as far as possible, that British people rather than foreign people join our armed forces?

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There are more than 9,000 foreign and Commonwealth personnel in our armed forces. A little later in my speech, I shall go into more detail about some of the nationalities that the Bill is most likely to affect. I think it important for young British men and women to see the merits of serving their country, and I would certainly encourage them to sign up, but I would also say that some of our bravest and best soldiers in the past have been from the Commonwealth or even occasionally from non-Commonwealth foreign countries.
	I recently attended a morning of prayer at the Muslim burial grounds in my constituency. This event was for soldiers from India who had served in the first world war, when the Germans had put around the rumour that if those people were killed in battle, they would not receive a proper burial. In my constituency it was clear even that long ago that there were brave men and women of what later came to be called Commonwealth origin fighting just as hard on European battlefields for Queen and country, democracy and the rule of law and against aggression as we have seen in more recent years. Clearly, this history and tradition of service in our armed forces of foreign and Commonwealth personnel goes back a long way, and I do not think that our Army should discriminate unduly against these incredible young men and women from overseas who want to carry on that tradition. As I shall explain later, it is mainly just a
	few nationalities that have had this wonderful tradition of serving in our armed forces so gallantly in the past. I see no reason why they should not continue to do so equally gallantly in the future.

Margot James: My hon. Friend has covered the point I intended to make, but does he agree that, during the second world war, were it not for the efforts of Commonwealth members of the armed forces, who were only too willing to act just as he describes, this country would have been in a sorry mess? My father served for three and a half years in India during the second world war, and he knew that fellow armed service personnel from India were crucial to our endeavours. It is also the case that many other ancillary staff who supported British troops in India made a valuable contribution to our war effort.

Jonathan Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent point. I entirely agree about the contribution of foreign and Commonwealth soldiers to our armed forces—not only in the second world war as she mentions, but in the first world war. In all major military endeavours between those times and since, such soldiers, with close links to this country—and, indeed, the ancillary staff without which no army, air force or ship goes into battle—have made a very important contribution. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her point.
	It was Claudius, the first Roman emperor to be born outside Italy, who introduced Roman citizenship for the retiring auxiliary soldier and all his children. In exchange for 25 years of honourable service, a veteran was given a double-sided bronze plaque, which granted him citizenship and a few other particular privileges, such as the right to marry—I will not go into recent issues relating to marriage in detail today; I suspect that in Roman times that meant traditional marriage.
	Our immigration laws today are modelled on very different principles, and rightly so. There is no automatic right to citizenship from service in the armed forces. It is right and fair that cases should be looked at on their individual merits, but we can certainly all agree that military service should not be grounds for disadvantage in this process. There is an important principle at stake: when soldiers have risked their lives serving in the British armed forces abroad, no member of the armed forces family should be at any disadvantage in the provision of public or commercial services, or in the eyes of the law, especially not with regard to citizenship. That is what is enshrined in our armed forces covenant, and that is what the Bill seeks to do with regard to the path to citizenship. No soldier or former soldier should be penalised when applying for citizenship because they have been serving our country abroad.
	There is currently a requirement that applicants for UK citizenship must have been in the UK on the date five years before an application for naturalisation. That requirement disadvantages a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces who was on an overseas posting at the relevant time. There is already a provision to waive the requirement in Crown service cases—which would include service in Her Majesty’s forces—but that applies only to those who are still in service and still overseas when they apply, and in practice it is applied only on an exceptional basis.

Harriett Baldwin: Will my hon. Friend clarify the territorial extent of the legislation, which the Bill refers to as England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and—there is a list of these—the British overseas territories? Is it the intention that those are the places where the applicant might want to settle and naturalise—I assume that they are not the places where the applicant might have to be serving in the armed forces? What does he mean by the territorial extent of the Bill?

Jonathan Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that query. I can confirm that those are the places where the person might wish to naturalise. The service overseas can be anywhere on the planet—and beyond, were we ever to get involved in star wars.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the Bill. On a narrow point, will he confirm that the benefits and rights conferred by British citizenship in these cases would be exactly the same as those for all naturalised individuals who gain citizenship, whether or not they are members of the armed forces?

Jonathan Lord: Yes, that is essentially the case, although I hope that when the Home Office or immigration officials look at a case, if it is one that is on the borderline of the path to citizenship, they will look kindly on service in our armed forces, because it is a noble calling that should be recognised as part of the process.

Mel Stride: In the same spirit of looking kindly at such circumstances, does my hon. Friend not feel that where an individual had fallen fall of the anomaly in the 1981 Act previously, and had failed in their first application for that reason, the authorities might look more kindly on the second application as a consequence?

Jonathan Lord: I feel sure that that will indeed be the case.
	The Bill will also cover members and former members of Her Majesty’s forces who subsequently have been discharged and/or have returned to the UK.

Harriett Baldwin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for returning to the issue I raised earlier on the British overseas territories, there is a special case, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has referred, for the sovereign bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which are classified as British dependent territories but are not counted as qualifying territories for nationality purposes. Will those two sovereign bases be included in the territorial extent of the legislation?

Jonathan Lord: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that they would indeed be included, and I am grateful to her for raising that point.
	It cannot be fair that a regular civilian or a solider who has been based in the UK can successfully apply for residency but a soldier who was serving in Afghanistan, or a member of the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy who was posted overseas five years before his or her application, cannot successfully apply for residency.
	Every day that members of the services have spent abroad should have the same value in the eyes of the immigration authorities as a day spent in the UK.

Guy Opperman: Is this not all part of what the armed forces covenant is about? It is about a situation existing for servicemen and women in which they are not treated differently from ordinary citizens in this country.

Jonathan Lord: That is the clear thrust of the Bill and the debate today. I hope that all Members listening will take that point on board and come to the ineluctable conclusion that what the Bill proposes is only fair.
	In answer to a question asked earlier, the main nationalities that are likely to benefit from this measure will be Fijian, Jamaican, South African, Zimbabwean and Ghanaian, since they are the main foreign and Commonwealth nationals represented in Her Majesty’s armed forces. I am pleased to say that, in addition, Nepalese nationals who have served in the Brigade of Gurkhas will also benefit. Although Gurkhas are required to remain citizens of Nepal while serving in the Brigade of Gurkhas, those seeking naturalisation following discharge will fall within the scope of the new provision. I hope that in addition to the military and veterans’ charities that I have mentioned, that national icon, Joanna Lumley, will also look favourably on the Bill and on the House if it decides to pass it.
	The measures in the Bill will correct an unfairness that Parliament committed to resolve when it enshrined the armed forces covenant into law. I hope that, with the approval of Members, the Bill will send out a further signal to those servicemen and women who hold a UK passport, and to those who do not, that the public and their representatives in this House are on their side and working to ensure that they are treated with the respect and dignity that their hard work, dedication and sacrifices deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.

Edward Leigh: May I say what a pleasure it is to speak on this calm Friday morning, and what a pleasurable experience it is to see law being made and properly scrutinised? May I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord)—I know that this is his first Parliament—that I thought his speech was outstanding. He took many interventions, and batted them all away very deftly. He has clearly done a huge amount of research. I commend him for what he has done, and also for his choice of Bill.
	It is very difficult to get a private Member’s Bill through, and I see nothing wrong with trying to persuade everyone to agree to it before it arrives on the Floor of the House. There is nothing wrong with co-operating with the Government in that sense, or indeed with the Opposition. My hon. Friend’s Bill is a very delicate creature, and it would take very few Members of Parliament to kill it. However, I have no doubt that it will become law, so I say well done to him.
	The Bill is important because it is entirely in tune with the armed forces covenant. Although when I was studying it in the Library my first impression was that it was very narrow, I see nothing wrong with that. Private Members' Bills have to be narrow. In fact, this Bill goes to the heart of current public debate: the armed forces
	are centre stage at present, and the Government have rightly made a great virtue of the armed forces covenant. Any ludicrous bureaucratic mechanism that disadvantages the forces is rightly resented by the Veterans Association. This is a good Bill, and I am sure that it will be an excellent Act.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend is a learned and long-established Member of Parliament. I wonder whether he will attempt to answer a question that has been niggling away at the back of my mind. It seems to me that the anomaly in the 1981 Act is an absolute absurdity. Why does my hon. Friend think that it occurred in the first place? Was it an unintended consequence of some part of the legislation? Was the aim to achieve something that we have missed here? Or was it simply an oversight that should never have occurred?

Edward Leigh: The short answer is that I do not know, but the Minister is sitting here, and no doubt he does know. What I will say is that although the private Member’s Bill procedure is often criticised, private Members' Bills are in fact scrutinised much more closely than Government Bills. The British Nationality Act was a large and important measure, but I am not a great believer in the conspiracy theory of history. I do not think that anyone in the Home Office wanted to disadvantage the armed forces. I am a believer in the cock-up theory of history, and if my hon. Friend wants my honest opinion, I think that that anomaly was simply a cock-up. Now it is being righted. That is what this procedure is all about.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, it is not right that the applications of people who put their lives on the line should be refused when the very reason for their absence is that we, the British Government—we, the British people—sent them overseas to protect our country. Why the anomaly arose I do not know, but it seems absurd to me, and that is why I think that the Bill, although narrow, is important.
	The Minister has said:
	“Making this change was a priority commitment under the Armed Forces Covenant. I am delighted to support this Bill which will ensure service men and women are not disadvantaged.”
	So the Minister is on side. As has been mentioned, Veterans Aid is also on side, and put it very well when it said:
	“Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign and Commonwealth servicemen and women, disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy that is demonstrably at odds with the Military Covenant.”
	The Army Families Federation has said:
	“This legislation will make a big difference to the many soldiers and their spouses who are currently prohibited from applying for Citizenship because they were serving overseas or were on operations at the start the 5-year residential period.”
	So this is clearly an important Bill, and it is clearly widely supported.
	This Second Reading debate offers us an opportunity to try to tease out more information from the Minister about exactly how many people will be affected, how much further we can go in terms of the military covenant, and how we can improve morale and recruitment. A considerable number of people will potentially be involved. As of 1 April last year, 8,510 of the 166,110 members of the trained UK regular forces were non-British, constituting
	approximately 5.1% of our nation’s armed forces. That is quite a lot. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that it is the right number, and what is the Government’s policy on recruitment.
	I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who intimated earlier that perhaps there were too many foreign nationals serving in our forces. The Minister, who is far more knowledgeable than me, will be able to confirm or correct that, but I suspect that the 5.1% figure is fairly constant. It seems a reasonably healthy percentage, but one would not want it to rise too far. It is important, particularly in times of economic difficulty and high unemployment, for our armed forces to consist overwhelmingly of British citizens.
	Of those 8,510 forces, about 520 were Nepalese, and nearly 8,000 were citizens of the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. About 4.5% of the armed forces intake at the end of 2011 consisted of black and ethnic-minority personnel. I may be wrong about this, but according to my research, there are currently no statistics stating how many non-British members of the UK regular forces currently desire to gain British citizenship. I suspect that the number is relatively low. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned a figure, but I do not know where he found it. Even if the number who will be affected is only in the low hundreds, I do not think that that necessarily means that the Bill is unimportant. It is the principle, rather than the number involved, that is important.

Guy Opperman: Is there not a distinction between the total number of overseas personnel in the armed forces and the number who are affected by the anomaly of the five-year rule, which by any standard is a much smaller number?

Edward Leigh: Of course. That is an obvious point.
	I should like to hear a bit more from the Minister about the armed forces covenant. The covenant states that the Government’s aspiration is that no armed forces personnel be disadvantaged in “dealings with wider society”. Those are the Government’s words, and I think that they are rather vague, but they could extend to applications for British citizenship. Clearly, what we are doing today is entirely in accord with the covenant. Although the issue with which we are dealing is important, it covers quite a small area. What do the Government mean when they say that armed forces personnel should not be disadvantaged in “dealings with wider society”?
	The covenant also refers to the Government aim of removing any social or economic inequalities between them and other citizens. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there are any other bureaucratic anomalies in regard to either recruitment or citizenship which still need to be addressed under the armed forces covenant. I suspect that what we are doing today will not be enough for the Veterans Association. It will be happy with it—indeed, it has already welcomed the Bill—but it will, quite rightly, ask for more.
	What is the Government’s aim? What obstacles do they feel that they should remove in order to get rid of any inequalities between our armed forces and other citizens? I also wonder whether the aim of the Bill is undermined by the fact that the families of members of
	the armed forces would have to apply for naturalisation via the normal and potentially lengthy methods. I have tried to study that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a good question about it earlier. We want to know how far this will extend. What exactly are we talking about, therefore?
	Mention was made of cleaners. Those who clean also serve their country. Families are very important, too. My point is that the armed forces community is just as important as armed forces personnel. Does this anomaly not ignore the Government’s commitments in the covenant to the armed forces community, rather than simply to armed forces personnel? The Minister has many questions to answer, but he is a very capable Minister so I am sure he will address them comprehensively.
	The levels of support available in the covenant to the families of armed forces personnel extends to
	“positive measures to prevent disadvantage.”
	What exactly does that mean? What further proposals will the Government make? As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said, our armed forces are paid well but not over-paid and their accommodation is good but in some cases it is not over-good, and there are many other areas where our armed forces feel they are disadvantaged.
	Families of non-British service personnel can be based overseas, potentially causing problems in their desire for UK citizenship. The Gurkhas, for instance, have bases in Nepal and Brunei. There are, however, already institutions such as the Gurkha settlement office which provide positive support for individuals wishing to apply for a visa or indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The existence of those institutions could be interpreted as fulfilling the Government’s commitment to minimise the impacts of such irritants on military life, but I suspect there are many irritants for our armed forces personnel which the Government still need to address. The measures we are addressing this morning are only a very small part of that.

Guy Opperman: I appreciate entirely the point my hon. Friend is making, but the implementation of the armed forces covenant is an ongoing process addressing many different aspects. The armed forces covenant annual report, a copy of which I am holding, is some hundred pages long and addresses a multitude of different issues, of which this issue is, I accept, a solitary one. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a process of slow, incremental progress on a number of issues?

Edward Leigh: Of course. We all know that the task facing the Minister is extremely difficult and it is better to make a small step than no step at all, but I think the question still needs to be asked. What we are talking about today is just getting rid of one very small little irritant. You are the expert on order, Mr Speaker, and I am not an expert on it, but it seems to me that this Second Reading debate gives us an opportunity to get more out of the Government on how they are trying to increase recruitment and other interesting issues. On other days, there is often not time to get adequate answers.
	Let us talk about the British Nationality Act 1981.

Mel Stride: rose—

Edward Leigh: I give way to my hon. Friend, who is an expert.

Mel Stride: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very gracious and, if I may say so, rather perceptive remark. Does not the fact that the anomaly that we are addressing today has now come to the Floor of the House, raised in a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), mean that it has ceased to be a small matter? Instead it has become rather totemic, which is all the more reason why we should make sure the Bill has safe passage through this House.

Edward Leigh: On Friday mornings, Members of Parliament naturally have many other things to do in their constituencies and we therefore all accept that the Chamber is not swarming with Members, but there are many people outside watching this debate on television, including many in the armed forces, and they will see this as totemic and they will be looking at Members of Parliament doing their best to try to get rid of the little irritants of service life one by one. I therefore think what we are doing today is important and should not be underestimated.
	I was in the House during the passage of the 1981 Act, but I do not have any close recollection of its passage; after all, there have been so many Acts of Parliament over the years. Clearly, however, something went wrong with it in respect of the issue we are addressing. It specifies certain residence requirements for naturalisation for British citizenship. It states that one requirement is that the applicant
	“was in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period of five years ending with the date of the application”.
	That would seem to be entirely sensible.
	Can the Minister also explain the thinking behind other requirements? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned one of his constituents who was married to an English person and has been disadvantaged by this Act. It is not only service personnel who are disadvantaged. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain the thinking behind this provision and others?
	The Act also specifies the number of days the applicant is allowed to be absent during the five-year qualifying period. The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to waive some of the residence requirements if there are “special circumstances”, however. This discretion is applied in applications involving non-British members of the armed forces. Time spent serving in the UK or overseas can count towards the qualifying residence period. However, it does not permit the Secretary of State to waive the requirement to be physically present in the UK on the first day of the qualifying period ending with the date of the application. One must assume that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon said, there was some rationale behind that. Given that the Secretary of State appears to have quite wide discretion, I am interested to know why no discretion was given in this particular case.

Harriett Baldwin: As my hon. Friend was in the House when the 1981 Act was passed, can he remember the territorial extent of that legislation? I ask that
	because I am a little confused as the territorial extent covered under the Bill includes the British overseas territories, which would potentially mean someone living in the overseas territories could apply for UK citizenship from their location.

Edward Leigh: You, Mr Speaker, must have immediately spotted this: I am sorry, but I misspoke as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I only arrived in the House in 1983. We have been here so long, and sometimes old men forget. We are not responsible for this Act, therefore, so that question will have to go to the Minister, and I am very happy to pass it on to him.

Christopher Chope: Is not the implication of this that somebody who has not set foot in this country for five years will be able to become a naturalised citizen? Is that the purpose of this Bill?

Edward Leigh: The Bill’s promoter is unavoidably absent from the Chamber for a few moments, but he will have to answer that question. My understanding, however, is that the answer is yes. We are creating a special dispensation today because we say, “Surely if someone has served their country for five years, they should not be disadvantaged in getting British citizenship just because they have been serving in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” That may be a controversial statement but what greater qualification is there to become a citizen of a country than to have served that country?
	All armies in history have done that. The quickest and best way to become a citizen of the Roman empire was to join a Roman legion, and there was very good thinking behind that. I do not think we should be in a different position, but, again, this is for the Minister to answer. I am still not clear, however, not only about exactly how many people will be involved, but whether, if this Bill becomes law and the 1981 Act is still in place, someone who has joined the armed forces, behaved well and served for five years but has never set foot in this country will pretty well have an automatic right to become a British citizen. They will have to go through the normal processes, of course, but is that the thinking? I am not sure whether I have had an answer to that yet. I know some people watching this debate may not agree with that, but I just ask the question—I am not sure I have an answer myself. Are we now moving to a situation where someone who joins the British forces, serves overseas all that time and never sets foot in this country can become British citizen? Will the Minister please make a particular note of that question and answer it.
	I ask that because the 1981 Act requires that
	“on the date of the application he is serving outside the United Kingdom in Crown service”.
	No minimum period of service is specified, nor is there any requirement to be present in the UK at any particular time. However, those who are not overseas or not still in service at the time of applying for naturalisation cannot benefit from the provision. These are all technical but important points.
	The provisions made in the 1981 Act are, however, used sparingly, as we know. Home Office guidance sets out that criteria such as rank and quality of service should be considered when assessing applications. Quality of service is of key importance in the assessment, with
	applications that do not satisfy on that ground being unlikely to be accepted, regardless of whether they satisfy statutory requirements.
	The amendments made by the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 give the Secretary of State discretion to waive all residential requirements where
	“a particular case…is an armed forces case”,
	where the applicant was a member of the armed forces on the date of the application. That does not, however, cater for individuals who have left the armed forces. I have said enough to reveal that these are complex legal areas that need to be tidied up.
	Before I sit down, I wish to make a more general point about the armed forces, a subject in which I take a great interest as chairman of the Conservative party’s Back-Bench defence and foreign affairs committee. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I use this opportunity to say that I am worried about the number of personnel in our armed forces and what is happening to our armed forces. I am now ranging a bit wide of the narrow point we are discussing. It has been a turbulent time in the Ministry of Defence, with a report due on the Defence Reform Bill at the end of October. A budget cut of 1.9% for 2015 will add to the large-scale cuts that have already been taking place, including recent reductions in the number of senior military officers. Many critics have voiced fears that such reductions could leave the UK with a smaller than adequate armed service.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is exceptionally cheeky on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and I feel sure, given the puckish grin on his face, that he is entirely conscious of the fact. If he wishes to air his concerns on this matter, he needs constantly to bear in mind the word “recruitment”.

Edward Leigh: I know I was being cheeky, Mr Speaker, but I could not resist the opportunity to try to expound on what is happening to our armed forces. I will not say any more about total defence spending, but, on personnel, I will make the following point. As of 2012, there were 750 non-UK citizens serving in the Royal Navy, which is relatively few of the 33,190 trained personnel; 7,640 non-UK citizens were serving in the Army, out of a total of 94,000 trained personnel; and only 120 non-UK citizens were serving in the Royal Air Force, which is a very small proportion of the 38,000. Intake of black and minority ethnic personnel at the higher levels of the UK regular forces is incredibly low, with only 20 officers joining in 2011 out of a total of 1,070. In the context of the wider armed forces debate, this is an opportunity for the Minister to talk about recruitment and his policy on attracting—or not attracting—people from Commonwealth countries to join the armed forces.
	I also hope that the Minister will say a bit about that context and how the Bill will affect the immigration debate in total. I suspect that that is what lay behind the interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Granting of UK citizenship in the year ending June 2013 was at a five-year high, with 204,541 applications having been accepted, with the figure having risen steadily to an average of an extra 7,000 successful applications a year. I know that the Minister cannot give too wide a discourse on the whole immigration debate, but it is important that we reassure people
	watching this debate that we are very conscious of not only the need to remove discrimination against the armed forces, but the wider immigration debate in this country. There has to be a balance.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend comment on the concern, which I certainly have, that one of the perverse consequence of this legislation might be to encourage the armed forces to do more overseas and foreign recruiting, rather than concentrating on trying to recruit at home? We know that it is difficult to recruit reservists at the moment—the Government are hard up against the issue of how they will meet the target on reservists—but it seems that this could be an agenda whereby we will fill our armed forces with people from overseas instead of from our own country.

Edward Leigh: As is often the case, my hon. Friend makes an intervention that just needs to be answered; we do need to reassure people. We value tremendously the men and women who are not UK citizens but who serve in our armed forces, with the Gurkhas being the most famous case, but he is making a fair point. I hope that the Minister will reassure my hon. Friend, me and those watching this debate that nothing in the Bill encompasses an attitude of, “It is difficult to recruit here in the UK and therefore the proportion of non-UK citizens serving in our armed forces is going to have to rise.” I suspect that my constituents would not necessarily welcome such a position. That is not to make any criticism of those serving or to disagree in any way, shape or form about the huge sacrifices made in the past century—mention has been made of the first world war—but I know that the Minister will understand the point being made in that intervention and will want to reply to it.
	Let us leave aside those wider worries about the level of recruitment in the armed forces and the wider debate about concerns about the level of immigration into this country. The year ending June 2013 did see a 14% rise in the number of non-British persons granted citizenship compared with the same period for the previous year.

Harriett Baldwin: Does my hon. Friend think it would be appropriate, when targeting net migration into this country, for the Government to make it clear how many of those who do come here are former members of our armed forces?

Edward Leigh: That is a good point, and I think I may end on it, as it allows me to sum up what I have been trying to say. There is concern about immigration into this country, but I am sure that the Minister can reassure us that the numbers we are talking about in this Bill are very small. Not only that, but the people involved have served our country and they are at a unique disadvantage. This modest but correct Bill will deal with that disadvantage, so I join my hon. Friend the Member for Woking in commending it to the House.

Harriett Baldwin: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) on introducing this excellent private
	Member’s Bill. I am delighted to be here to speak in support of it, just as he was kind enough to be here to support my private Member’s Bill. The Minister, who is my neighbour, as he represents Forest of Dean, was also in the Chamber that day. Since then, he has been promoted to his current role, so I hope that the fact he is sitting on the Front Bench today augurs well for the Bill.
	The Bill is an extremely worthwhile piece of legislation, but, as we were just hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), it is incredibly important that we scrutinise these pieces of legislation in great detail. Although the Bill appears short, containing few clauses, my scrutiny of it has found that it raises many questions in this important area, on which I seek the Minister’s clarification. I wish to ask him about the time an individual is required to spend, and where they are required to spend it, before the process of naturalisation can begin. I want to explore the Secretary of State’s discretion in these matters, which is clearly outlined in the Bill, and to ask the Minister further questions about the territorial extent clause. I also want to clarify whether the naturalisation provisions added to our general citizenship legislation since the 1981 Act—specifically the requirement to pass a citizenship test and how the test has been changed—would continue to apply in this case. Given that this is a Second Reading debate, I hope that you will regard all those areas of questioning as in order, Mr Speaker.
	As I understand it, the provisions on timing relate only to the starting point of the application for naturalisation. As things stand at the moment, the individual making the application needs to be in the United Kingdom at the point at which the clock starts ticking for the five-year period. I would like that clarified.
	I also want clarification on the territorial extent of the Bill. My interpretation is that clause 2(3) would extend the Bill to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, which all seems very logical, but also to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. It is on the British overseas territories that my questions begin to multiply. It is worth putting into Hansard that they are Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands and its dependencies, Gibraltar of course, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena and its dependencies, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the British Virgin Islands.

Guy Opperman: On the 300th anniversary of the treaty of Utrecht, my hon. Friend has mentioned Gibraltar. She may recall that it was taken under British command, but with the aid of Dutch and Austrian troops.

Harriett Baldwin: The question is whether those troops settled in Gibraltar and what the rules were for their naturalisation as British citizens prior to 1981. I can honestly say that I do not have the faintest clue, but that is an interesting historical point.
	I was evacuated to the British sovereign base of Dhekelia as a child when, as a British citizen, I was growing up in Cyprus. We were living in Nicosia at the time, and we were often under threat of invasion by Turkish forces. I remember being evacuated to Dhekelia,
	and feeling incredibly safe and secure there, on British sovereign territory. My father, however, had to remain behind in Nicosia to do his job. He put a Union flag on the roof of our house, and we sincerely hoped that the Turkish air force would be able to spot it from the air should it decide to bomb Nicosia. However, I digress, Mr Speaker.
	I am trying to find out how my hypothetical examples would be affected by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking told us that the provision would probably apply to a citizen of Fiji. Let us imagine that that citizen of Fiji joins Her Majesty’s armed forces, does exemplary service and decides—I do not know what the residence requirements would be—that he or she wants to remain in the British Indian Ocean Territory. Does the territorial extent of the Bill mean that the first date of the five-year period includes residence in one of the territories I have listed? That is my interpretation.
	In relation to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, a situation might arise in which, as we heard, a Jamaican citizen who joined our armed forces abroad and served with great courage with them in other parts of the world decides to settle in Gibraltar, or perhaps closer to Jamaica, in the Cayman Islands. From there, could that person apply for naturalisation as a British citizen, without ever having resided in what we might more naturally think of as the United Kingdom? I particularly want clarification on that point. I understand that the 1981 Act requires people to spend five years resident in the UK, but does the territorial extent in the Bill define the UK more widely? I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that.
	The first residence requirement in the 1981 Act is that applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least five years, and I am again interested in the Minister clarifying the territorial extent of the United Kingdom in that regard. The second requirement is that they must have been present in the United Kingdom five years before the date of application, which is the provision that we are tackling; the third is that they are free of immigration time restrictions on the date of application; and the fourth is that they are free of immigration restrictions for a period of 12 months before making the application. Will that remain in force when the Bill is passed?
	The fifth requirement is that the applicants have not spent more than 450 days outside the United Kingdom during the five-year period. I understand that that is covered by the Secretary of State’s discretion with regards to serving members of the armed forces. The sixth is that they have not spent more than 90 days outside the United Kingdom in the last 12 months of the five-year period. The final requirement is that they have not been in breach of the immigration rules at any stage during the five-year period. Can the Minister confirm that all those aspects of the residency requirements in the 1981 Act will continue to apply, and that the Bill will change only one particular area?
	Since the 1981 Act, there has been one major modification to what it takes for someone to be naturalised as a citizen of the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to the UK citizenship test. I do not know whether you have ever had the chance to see whether you can pass it, Mr Speaker, but in preparation for this debate, I thought that I would see whether I could do so. I looked at some
	sample tests, and I regret to inform the House that in the first sample test I failed to reach the necessary 75% required to pass.
	Let me give some examples of questions that I did not answer successfully. I will not put you on the spot, Mr Speaker, although I know you are an encyclopaedically knowledgeable man. The following question stumped me: in which year did married women get the right to divorce their husband? To help the applicant there are four possible answers, and I am happy to take an intervention from anyone who can answer the question correctly. The options are 1837, 1857, 1875 or 1882. I do not know the correct answer, but I know I got it wrong. I am glad to say that I did know that it is not the Prime Minister who calls a by-election and that we have two Chambers in our national Parliament, so I sailed through some of the questions.
	Here is another question that I failed miserably to pass: what is the number of children and young people up to the age of 19 in the UK? Again, Mr Speaker, I will help you out, but I will not put you on the spot. I will take interventions from colleagues who know the answer. The four possible answers are 13 million, 14 million, 15 million and 16 million. I failed on that one and I can see that the House has also failed on that measure of citizenship. I was getting rather depressed with my results from the test until I discovered a crucial fact. I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on any involvement that he may have had in this crucial fact, which is that this Government have now introduced a much more sensible citizenship test. Those examples were taken from the citizenship test that can only be described as a new Labour fantasy about the level of knowledge that we would all have about our country.
	I will not go on with further examples of questions that I failed—

Mark Harper: Please do.

Harriett Baldwin: Shall I? In that case, here is another one.

Jonathan Lord: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the Bill. I was pleased to support her in her private Member’s endeavours and it is nice to have that compliment returned. I hope the new citizenship test is much more about our democracy, our history, the rule of law, Magna Carta and so on, rather than how to claim benefits or some of the more esoteric questions that she has just cited.

Harriett Baldwin: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Lady that whatever the insatiable appetite that might or might not exist among colleagues for examples of taxing questions in citizenship tests, it is important to retain the focus on the Bill? I fear that dilating on what she regards as the flaws in an earlier citizenship test takes us some distance from that narrow focus, to which I know she will now return with enthusiasm and accuracy.

Harriett Baldwin: The enthusiasm and the accuracy with which I welcome the Bill are such that I want to hear confirmation from the Minister that any serving member of our armed forces who has settled in any of
	the territories described in the Bill will still have to go through all the aspects of acquisition of citizenship outlined in the 1981 Act, as well as the additional step—the citizenship test brought in since that time.

Jonathan Lord: Does my hon. Friend think that battles that were important to our nation’s past and influenced us over many centuries would be an obvious topic for questions, and ones that our armed services personnel ought to be able to answer? That great history and tradition may be one reason they joined up in the first place.

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of why he is so well-placed to introduce the Bill. It demonstrates that he understands all the things that we as British citizens consider appropriate ways in which to demonstrate that we understand what it means to be British. If Mr Speaker will bear with me one moment, I shall give an example of the sort of question that used to be in the test, which I do not think was appropriate—how many days in any given year must a school legally be required to be open? Suggested answers are 150 days, 170 days, 190 days and 200 days. Again, I will take interventions from any colleagues who feel confident that they know the answer to that question.
	My hon. Friend is right. In bestowing on people the highest gift of citizenship that anyone can have bestowed upon them, which is British citizenship, we want successful individuals to be able to demonstrate that they understand the quintessence of what it means to be British.

Edward Leigh: This is all rather absurd. Can one imagine such a situation when the Emperor Claudius allowed Roman legionnaires to become Roman citizens? There they were, spending five years fighting barbarians on the German frontier, and then they would be required to come back and answer questions about how many days there were in the qualification to become a tribune. All those obscure questions about the constitution are ridiculous. If someone has served their country for five years, surely that is qualification enough, without having to answer absurd questions.

Harriett Baldwin: Perhaps I am about to introduce a note of dissent into our discussions this morning. I think that when we bestow on people that highest honour of citizenship, British citizenship, we expect those who are so proud to take on our citizenship to understand aspects of our history and culture, and to understand the long and distinguished history of our armed forces, for example. That is why I welcome the fact that the citizenship test that this Government have introduced covers much more of the history, the culture and the spirit of democracy that we have in this country, rather than esoteric questions such as from which two places one can obtain advice if one has a problem at work. The possible answers are the national Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the point that the test that the Government envisage is in the hon. Lady’s mind preferable to earlier incarnations of it has now been very fully made. What is not legitimate is for the
	hon. Lady, while feigning politeness towards the Chair and acknowledgement of the instructions issued from it, then to proceed to do again precisely what I have indicated to her she should no longer persist in doing. I know that she is so intellectually dextrous that she will now transfer to the present, and we will look forward to the racy and intoxicating character of the remainder of her speech.

Harriett Baldwin: Mr Speaker, I shall have that speech of yours printed and engraved. It is so eloquent that I can only—

Guy Opperman: May I draw my hon. Friend back to the Bill? Surely the point is that this country, whose virtues she is extolling, has a long history of support by overseas troops and forces to win key battles. Waterloo would not have been won without the Prussians, Wellington famously crying, “Where is Blucher?” I presume General Blucher could have applied, were he willing to change from Prussian to British, to become a British citizen.

Harriett Baldwin: My understanding is that he would have had to have been resident in the territories outlined in the Bill for a considerable period of time before applying.
	I will bring to a conclusion this line of discussion, but I am pleased to report to the House—you will forgive me, Mr Speaker—that I was able to get 100% on the new citizenship test. I expect that all the people who go through the process will, as a result of these changes, be able to demonstrate not just the narrow technical points that we define on a page in legislation, such as the number of days, but the wider cultural and historical aspects of what it means to be a British citizen.
	My next line of questions for the Minister relates to the Secretary of State’s discretion, which I understand is a crucial part of the legislation. That discretion is vital because someone serving in our armed forces might get into trouble with the law, either civilian or military, and might—I am sure that the numbers are very low—have to go through the ignominy of a dishonourable discharge. If a member of the armed forces has been dishonourably discharged, would that almost invariably mean that they would not meet the new criteria for applying for naturalisation? Perhaps the Minister will confirm that from the Dispatch Box.
	That former member of the armed forces might have lived a blameless life for many years since, their dishonourable discharge having been some time in the past, so to what extent will the Secretary of State’s discretion be used in that example? Would it be the case that, however much time had elapsed and however honourable the person’s life had been since, the fact that they had been dishonourably discharged would be sufficient to count against their application for naturalisation?
	Will the Minister, when he responds, clarify exactly how the Secretary of State’s discretion might be used in other situations? What other aspects of that discretion might be required? For example, if the person had had a magnificent period of service, left the armed forces, lived in one of the overseas dependencies I listed earlier and was then perhaps convicted of rape or murder, would that be something the Secretary of State would
	see automatically as a red line? My understanding is that it would, because being of good character is a requirement.
	The other area of discretion I would like clarified relates to the requirement to be able to communicate to an acceptable degree in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic. Someone might have exemplary military service and fulfil all the conditions, and they might be one of the people who will be helped by the Bill, because at the beginning of their process of naturalisation they were on active service overseas, but perhaps their command of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic is not quite at an acceptable level. To what extent will the Secretary of State be able to use his or her discretion in those circumstances? It is a question of how discretion will be used to define good character. Similarly, how will discretion be used to define the ability to communicate in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic?

Jonathan Lord: I am not sure how many Fijians in our armed forces are fluent in Scottish Gaelic, but I suspect not many. Does my hon. Friend think that that would be a handicap to our foreign armed services personnel who come to this country and try to acclimatise to our customs, language and communications?

Harriett Baldwin: I am proud to say that my grandmother spoke Scottish Gaelic fluently.

Mel Stride: Was she Fijian?

Harriett Baldwin: No. As a girl, I learned to say, “An t-Eilean Muileach, an t-eilean àghmhor”, which means, “The Isle of Mull is of all isles the fairest”, because my grandmother’s heritage was from the Isle of Mull. However, I think that the discretion will probably be more concerned with the command of English.
	Will the Secretary of State’s discretion be needed—perhaps the Minister will clarify this—in relation to the characteristics of being of sound mind? That is an extremely important point, because sadly people who have served in our armed forces can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Secretary of State might feel that it was appropriate to use discretion in relation to soundness of mind on compassionate grounds, perhaps for someone who has given great service to our armed forces and been helped by the Bill because they were not in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the five-year period because they were serving Her Majesty in our armed forces and might be suffering as a direct result of that active service. To what extent could the discretion be used in schedule 1 to the 1981 Act in relation to the applicant’s soundness of mind? We as a society are making enormous progress on tackling the stigma associated with mental illness. Indeed, the stigma that attaches to a Member of Parliament in relation to their mental capacity is something that this House has discussed at length during this Parliament. I want to see a great deal of progress on this in our society so that we accept that one of the consequences of time served in our armed forces may be post-traumatic stress that requires the Secretary of State to be more understanding in his or her use of discretion as regards this aspect of schedule 1.
	Those are some of the questions that I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with. I join the whole House in commending my hon. Friend the Member for
	Woking for having introduced a really exemplary piece of private Members’ legislation. He has identified an issue, worked with the armed forces charities on how we can resolve it for members of our armed forces who are on active service when they want to start their application for citizenship, and realised that the most expeditious way to do so is to introduce this Bill. I look forward to voting for its Second Reading.

Mel Stride: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who was indeed, as the Speaker suggested, both racy and intoxicating in her comments. I almost feel as though I will need a cold shower when I leave the Chamber after this debate. She was also extremely comprehensive in dealing with all the various detailed elements and issues that arise from the Bill—so much so that she has covered almost all the points that I was likely to make. However, I will make one or two none the less.
	Before I do so, I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) on introducing this extremely important Bill. Many Members will be aware that this is not the first time he has introduced a private Member’s Bill; he is very lucky in the ballot and has been so this time as well. It was a great privilege and honour for me to serve with him on the Committee that considered the Bill that successfully passed through this House and became the Sports Ground Safety Authority Act 2011. I have every confidence that this Bill, not just because of its merits but because of the diligence and skill with which he presents Bills, will pass through the House. It is extremely important that it does so.
	I remember as a young man at university in the early part of the 1980s being much affected, as many people were, by the sight of our troops on active service in the Falklands conflict. I well remember some of the tragedies that followed from that conflict. I remember Brian Hanrahan’s extraordinary phrase,
	“I counted them all out and I counted them all back.”
	Of course, that was a euphemism to provide us with the comfort that our men and women, in those extreme circumstances, were, on that particular occasion, safe and well. That left a deep and lasting impression on me. I have been a member of the Royal British Legion for several years, although I have never had the privilege of serving in our armed forces. I none the less value them immensely. Of course, we also think of our armed forces fighting in other theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan more recently.
	It is therefore incumbent on us, as expressed in the armed forces covenant to which the Government committed themselves in May 2011, to place great emphasis on the very special, unwritten contract between the British people and those who serve us in the armed forces, not only in fighting for us on the front line, often in direct defence of our country and our national interest, but in carrying out their sterling work in promoting peace and humanitarian assistance throughout the world. In that sense, we are talking not just about our own people, in our terms, fighting for our country, but about humanity and the work that our brave men and women do to support humanitarian needs and peace throughout the world.

Guy Opperman: I endorse entirely my hon. Friend’s comments, but I would go one step further. Although there may be an unwritten contract between the public and the armed forces, the Government have brought in the armed forces covenant and will provide updated reports on its progress and changes to it. Not only do the public have the unwritten contract but we, the public and the state now have the covenant between ourselves and our armed forces.

Mel Stride: I thank my hon. Friend for making that extremely important point. We have the annual report on the armed forces covenant. The Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking addresses one key omission in the last annual report, namely the qualification or otherwise for naturalisation based on where a person happens to be five years prior to making their application.
	Some have argued that that is a relatively narrow and small point, but it is a large and significant one, particularly now that it has gained huge public notice as a consequence of my hon. Friend’s Bill. Many of the military charities, including the Royal British Legion, have demonstrably shown support for it. It is therefore important that we give the Bill every possible support as it passes through both Houses.

Jonathan Lord: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for his strong support for the Bill, and for serving in Committee on a previous private Member’s Bill of mine. He speaks movingly of the Falklands conflict—he and I were at college together at the time—which was a pivotal point for our country. Does he have other insights, perhaps from the armed forces based in his constituency? Has he taken part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme to give him further insights on how much citizenship could mean to our foreign and commonwealth armed forces personnel?

Mel Stride: As I intimated earlier, I have never been a member of the armed forces, but I am acutely aware of that through my contacts with constituents and the Royal British Legion, and particularly the Ashburton branch. I should like to take this opportunity to salute all they do to support not only servicemen, but their families and those in wider community who are affected, when they have difficulties. The Bill is a totemic issue. Were it to fail to pass, it would have serious implications for the message we seek to send to our armed forces in support of them.
	The anomaly whereby, if a person happens not to have been resident within the UK five years prior to the moment at which they make their application for naturalisation, they cannot, even at the discretion of the Home Secretary, achieve British citizenship, is quite wrong. I hope the Minister gives serious thought to how reapplications by the small number of individuals who have been caught by that anomaly in the 1981 Act can, in some sense, be looked upon more favourably than if they had not applied or failed in the past because of the anomaly.

Jonathan Lord: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s strong support and excellent speech, but can he help me? If the Bill is given a Second Reading, will he consider serving on the Committee that scrutinises the Bill?

Mel Stride: I would be delighted to serve on the Public Bill Committee, subject to my availability—[Laughter.] I was not allowing myself a get-out, incidentally. I would be genuinely delighted to serve in Committee. I am sure there is a special tie to commemorate serving on two of my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill Committees. He might want to give that some thought.
	I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, as other hon. Members wish to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) touched on a point before he was, quite correctly, stopped by Mr Speaker. He spoke of the resources going into the armed forces. That is a pertinent point, inasmuch as that has an effect on how those in the armed forces feel about how we as a Government, as Parliament and as people in turn feel about them. For that reason and the others I have outlined, it is important that we see the Bill pass successfully through Parliament.
	Many men and women over many centuries have stood up for our country, defending democracy, the rule of law, our culture, our history and all we stand for. I hope the Bill has a successful passage through Parliament. It is thoroughly deserved. I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking on introducing it.

Margot James: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and to reinforce many of the points that he has made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) on choosing such an important subject for his private Member’s Bill.
	As we have heard, there are 9,000 foreign and Commonwealth personnel serving in our armed forces. Without negating the desirability of recruiting more British-born personnel to our armed forces, the House is in accord when it comes to the huge contribution that members of the Commonwealth have made to our armed forces over the years. My hon. Friend gave the first world war as an example, and I intervened to point out that this country was in great need of the services of people from the Commonwealth in the second world war. So this tradition goes back a long way.
	More recently, we have been fortunate to have the services of people from the Commonwealth in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other parts of the world, sometimes in conflict situations, sometimes in peacekeeping roles and also in meeting sudden needs in this country, such as the security challenges for the Olympics last year. It is a crucial part of the military covenant, and I am proud to be a supporter of a Government who have put such store in that covenant. As the Bill proves, there is still some way to go to honour fully the spirit of the covenant and ensure that we demonstrate our moral obligation to members of the armed forces, and their families, who make such sacrifices for the nation. We must also counter any disadvantages they might suffer by dint of being members of the armed forces. Most importantly, we must compensate them with special treatment wherever appropriate.
	My hon. Friend mentioned that the concept of the military covenant goes back to Roman times, with the issue of nationality and the status that it gives being the ultimate reward for people who put their lives at risk serving their nation. Men who served in the Roman
	army were automatically given the status of Roman citizenship, and it is that principle that I hope we will be able to see into British law today.
	The UK Border Agency is trying to improve the situation for people from overseas and Commonwealth territories who serve in our armed forces in several ways to ensure that immigration and nationality issues do not disadvantage them. It currently does so in a number of ways. We have seen that army charities support the Bill as a way of reducing discrimination on matters of nationality, and I would like to quote the Army Families Federation, which sums up the welcome for the Bill:
	“This legislation will make a big difference to the many soldiers and their spouses who are currently prohibited from applying for Citizenship because they were serving overseas or were on operations at the start of the 5 year residential period. The current rule has been disproportionately disadvantaging members of HM Forces and their families for many years, and the AFF is fully supportive of the proposed changes”.
	I am sure that in its support the AFF and other charities are mindful of the fact that the people who join the armed forces are subject to service law. That distinguishes them from people in other occupations, in that once they are committed to a career in the armed forces, they have no choice about being deployed overseas, often at short notice. It therefore comes as no surprise that there have always been, and, unless the Bill is passed there will always be, individuals who are in the wrong place at the wrong time in the service of our country while putting their lives on the line.
	The Bill is incredibly important. It may affect only approximately 200 people at any point in time, but the House is not just about protecting the rights of the many; it is also about protecting the rights, liberty and equal treatment of the few, and I can imagine that for those 200 people this is probably the most important thing in their lives. I can well imagine the shock on realising that they are barred from citizenship. I am sure that most of them are unaware of the state of the law until they embark on the application process.
	I would like to talk a little more about the military covenant, as it is the basis for the legitimacy of the Bill. I was interested to read the armed forces covenant annual report published last year. There was a lot in the report—if Members are interested, it is available in the Library—about the challenges facing people from the Commonwealth serving in our armed forces when they come to apply for citizenship or exercise their rights. The report received many contributions from charities such as the Naval Families Federation, the Army Families Federation and the RAF Families Federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking cited in support of his Bill many of the charities that have contributed to the report and to the ongoing monitoring of the military covenant in practice. He mentioned, of course, the Royal British Legion, with which all Members work in their constituencies, particularly on key dates of the year, such as national Armed Forces day and, most importantly, Remembrance day. These groups have given their time to monitor the progress of the military covenant. When my hon. Friend takes the Bill through Committee, as we all hope he will, he might consider some related issues on nationality. The charities that contributed to the report, particularly the Army Families Federation, receive regular, continued complaints about families receiving inconsistent advice from the
	UK Border Agency. I am pleased that the Government are listening to those complaints and that changes are in train that should allow those families to be treated like any other family applying for visas. That is crucial.
	The other matter that I want to raise concerns an issue that I mentioned in brief earlier. In order to ensure greater consistency, there is a need for guidance from the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence to clarify, both for case officers considering applications for settlement and naturalisation and for applicants, how people’s military service will affect an application. As I mentioned earlier, at the moment, applications for settlement and naturalisation can be rejected on the basis of military offences, which I understand can be quite minor in nature and which, importantly, would not incur a conviction in civilian life. That is surely an example of a disadvantage of being a member of the armed forces, which the military covenant is designed to remove.
	The military covenant has been successful at removing discrimination in other areas and making special allowances for the fact that those leaving the armed forces will be at a disadvantage for having served. I am thinking, for example, of parents with primary school-age children who move to an area where there is huge pressure on primary schools. Such parents are being helped by the special measures that are now being put in place. I cite that as an example of the Government’s acknowledging that members of the armed forces are at an inherent disadvantage by virtue of their former profession. The Government are correcting that disadvantage. Indeed, there are many other examples, which Members will know from their constituencies—citing them would perhaps force me to stray too far from the Bill—of where the Government have righted previous wrongs. This is an important area that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking is giving us a chance to address.
	In conclusion, we hope that the military covenant will be a living instrument. We need to build on progress and sustain the momentum, to uphold the principles of no disadvantage and, crucially, of special treatment—I have given an example in education, but there are many others, including in health. The Bill contributes significantly to that momentum.

Jonathan Lord: My hon. Friend speaks well about the beneficial effects of the armed forces covenant and how the Bill helps to fill a small gap in it. Has she met any soldiers or servicewomen in her constituency who might benefit from it or who think it is a good idea?

Margot James: I have met many serving or retired members of our armed forces—I work with the Royal British Legion, among other organisations. Having a relatively stable population in my constituency, I have not been privileged to meet any of the 200 or so individuals who will be affected by the Bill, but I am sure that the Royal British Legion and other representatives of the armed forces charities in my constituency would be right behind my hon. Friend in introducing this important measure. It will contribute hugely to the momentum that we want to maintain behind the military covenant, removing as it does the anomaly that places some 200 members of our armed forces at a disadvantage. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Bill to the House.

Guy Opperman: The Bill is about two of the most important issues that we in the House of Commons debate—namely, the armed forces and immigration. Most of all, however, it is about justice and fairness, and that is surely what the armed forces covenant is all about. The covenant is not just a piece of paper; it is a priority for the Government. It is about fair treatment for our forces and about having an impact on the lives of the military personnel who serve in our communities. Its remit goes wider than that, however; it is about justice. The armed forces covenant is about an obligation on the whole of society. It involves voluntary, charitable and other bodies, as well as private organisations and it is about how all of us as individuals treat those who put their lives on the line for us. We all need to recognise that fact and to engage with it, so that we can implement the crucial elements of the covenant.
	I urge those who are in any doubt about the process that the Government have entered into to study the covenant itself and to work their way through its history. The covenant was established in May 2011, and it was based on the principles of removing disadvantage from serving personnel in relation to access to public and commercial services, and of allowing special provision in some circumstances for the injured and the bereaved. The Government committed to rebuilding the covenant and established an armed forces covenant taskforce in July 2010. The taskforce reported to the Government, and many of its recommendations have subsequently been implemented. It produced two reports. The size of the second report—the “Armed forces covenant annual report 2012”, which runs to almost 100 pages—is testimony to the seriousness with which the Government are addressing these issues. It contains details of the specific measures that we are taking.
	Significant achievements are to be found in many discrete areas of the covenant. Health care, for example, is a matter of prime importance for service personnel. Investment has been made in areas such as medical equipment in theatre and mental health care provision. Many of us have spoken in the House about the importance of providing support for our servicemen and women after they have been discharged from the Army, or when they are merely returning home on leave. I urge Members to visit Headley Court, the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, which was opened with £17 million of assistance from the Government. A further £5 million is going towards wards and accommodation. Thanks to the armed forces covenant, there have also been developments in housing. Members of the armed forces are now being placed at the top of the priority list on the Government’s First Buy scheme.
	The armed forces covenant is why we are here today. The anomaly that the Bill seeks to address is that a serviceman or woman who serves overseas for a considerable length of time does not satisfy the requirements for naturalisation in the way that others are able to do.
	I speak with great relevance to my own constituency because I have the privilege of having Albemarle barracks in my Northumberland constituency. For many years, the troops based there have been the 39th Regiment the Royal Artillery. By reason of the basing review, they are moving down to Wiltshire. We shall therefore be welcoming in the near future the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. Let me explain the relevance of this to the Bill.
	The 3rd Regiment RHA have been based at Caen barracks in Hohne, Germany. Many soldiers have spent a considerable period of time there—overseas. I do not know the exact number of individuals, but if that regiment has overseas servicemen working there who, by reason of the British Nationality Act 1981, do not qualify for citizenship, they would be exactly the sort of individuals who would benefit from the fact that this Government are addressing this particular anomaly.
	I speak as fifth generation immigrant—one with a lot more “Saxon” than “Anglo” in my name. It is certainly the case that anyone coming from 3rd Regiment RHA should be able to benefit when, as we all hope, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who has done great job bringing it before us, becomes law. I endorse entirely the support that various charities and Army organisations have expressed for the Bill and I welcome the fact that the Government have consulted them and got them involved. Like many others, I am a huge supporter of the Royal British Legion. I have raised funds for my local branch and it does a fantastic job. In addition, I welcome the fact that organisations such as Veterans Aid and the Army Families Federation have got involved and strongly supported my hon. Friend’s Bill.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the Bill. Is it not just as significant that, as far as we are aware, no organisations are hostile to the Bill, just as all the military charities are in favour of it?

Guy Opperman: That is the case. We need to recognise that there is a rich tradition of this country working with overseas soldiers in pursuit of the aims and objectives of the Queen and this country. One needs to think only of the battle of Britain. The Spitfire was not manned to the greatest degree by Anglo-Saxon men and women, as there were 145 pilots from Poland, 135 from New Zealand, 112 from Canada and 88 from Czechoslovakia; 41 were Irish and there were 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 11 Americans and one each from Sri Lanka, Jamaica and Zimbabwe. An interesting point that dovetails into our consideration of this Bill is that Jamaica will be particularly affected because its citizens continue to support and serve in our armed services to this day.
	We appreciate the fact that the Bill is amending just one small part of the armed forces covenant, but it is certainly something that we should all support. As I reflect on the fact that there appears to be no opposition to the Bill and full support for it from a whole range of organisations, it makes me glad to be participating in private Members’ Bill proceedings for what I believe is the third time—I have a rich history over three years and three months with the Mobile Homes Bill and the Antarctic Bill, both of which I am pleased to say became law. I am very pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Woking on his Bill; he has done a fantastic job.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) on bringing this important issue before us today and on setting out so eloquently the aims of his private
	Member’s Bill. Let me say right from the start that the Opposition support its aims, so the hon. Gentleman has the cross-party support that he was looking for.
	If you will allow me to digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was intrigued by the question of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) who asked when women were allowed to divorce their husbands for the first time. I found out that it was in 1858 and that the first woman to do so was Caroline Norton, who was apparently married to a hard-line Tory MP. She felt she needed to divorce that man, which was the driving force behind the marriage and divorce legislation that came into force in 1858.

Harriett Baldwin: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is alone in the Chamber in being able to answer that question successfully, but did she have to use Google to find out?

Diana Johnson: I will admit that I did.
	To return to the subject of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to our armed forces for the difficult job they do on our behalf. The Labour party campaigned for the armed forces covenant to be properly enshrined in law—the Armed Forces Act 2011. The core principles of the covenant state that no one across the armed forces community should face disadvantage for their decision to serve in the forces. The covenant also states that where appropriate and necessary, the Government look at special treatment to prevent disadvantage for the forces.
	I had a little sympathy with the question that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) asked about why this private Member’s Bill is before us today, and why its provisions are not going to be in the immigration Bill on which the Minister for Immigration is currently working. Unlike this private Member’s Bill, the Government’s immigration Bill would provide an opportunity for Members to table amendments on other categories of people who deserve special consideration, to which reference has been made today. Will the Minister comment on that?
	This Bill implements a commitment that the Government made in the armed forces covenant in 2011 that new legislation would be introduced to enable foreign and Commonwealth service personnel to be exempted from the requirement to be in the UK at the start of the residential period for naturalisation as a British citizen, if in service on that date. As I have said, the Opposition support the Bill’s aims, but, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I want to ask a number of questions about how the Bill would work in practice.
	We heard that 9,000 servicemen and women will potentially be eligible for settlement under the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that that is the correct figure? We also heard that about 200 service personnel might want to take advantage of the change in the law. Will the Minister confirm that that is an accurate estimate? Has the Home Office been able to ascertain the number who would want to take advantage of the change? Will he also comment on the knock-on effect for dependants of armed forces personnel? How many additional people will follow from any claim that is made?
	Have the hon. Member for Woking and the Minister given any thought to guidelines that would need to be brought forward to flesh out how the Bill would operate? For instance, will there be a minimum period that members of the armed forces will have to serve to have that counted towards the five years? Will there be a time limit within which such a person could apply to settle? On the retrospective nature of the Bill, we look forward to hearing from the Minister whether there is potential for people who have served previously in the armed forces to use the new provision.
	On the issue of reservists that was raised by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the debate did not make it clear whether people who do not have the right to remain here in the first place are able to join up as reservists. Will the Minister clarify that?
	What will happen if a person is injured in service? How will that affect their ability to take advantage of the new provision if, for instance, they could not complete a tour of service and left the armed forces early. I have an example of a soldier from Ghana who arrived in June 2009 on a visitor visa. He joined the armed forces in September 2010. At that point he became exempt from the timings of the visitor visa, but unfortunately he was medically discharged in August 2012 owing to injuries contracted as a result of a military exercise. After leaving the forces, he was unable to work or to claim benefits because he had not completed his infantry training, which was a stipulation of his visa. He was then detained, and removal directions were set in June 2013. I understand that military personnel who have not served in the forces for at least four years are not normally eligible for settlement in the United Kingdom. This soldier applied for a concession because of his circumstances, but his application was rejected.
	That is a specific example, but what would happen if other people serving in the armed forces found themselves in a similar position? I know that the Secretary of State has discretion, but would the guidance suggest a presumption that the full length of military service be taken into account, rather than if it is cut short by injury? I should also like to know whether there will be an appeal process. Again, I know that the Secretary of State has discretion, but is there any possibility of a review of the use of that discretion, or would there have be a judicial review, as often happens in the case of a discretionary measure?
	Is any preferential treatment given to Commonwealth citizens because of our long-standing arrangements with the Commonwealth? Do they have a better chance of obtaining settlement than someone from a country outside the Commonwealth? If that is the case, are citizens of countries that are currently suspended from the Commonwealth at a disadvantage?
	It has been a pleasure to listen to the contributions to the debate. I think we all recognise the valuable part that the armed forces play in our society.

Mark Harper: It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had prepared only a brief speech, but the debate has been so wide-ranging, and Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for
	Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson)—have asked such complex questions, that I fear that I may need to draw on some more material.
	The Government’s support for the Bill will not come as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), because he quoted my remarks earlier. I am grateful to him for presenting it. I had forgotten, until I was prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that this was his second private Member’s Bill in what has so far been a short, but I know will be a very long, parliamentary career. He has been rather more successful in the ballot than I have been during my time in the House, and he has used his opportunities well. I know that his first Bill was very good, and I hope that this one reaches the statute book as well. I am also grateful to those who have supported the Bill.
	My hon. Friend said that part of his reason for presenting the Bill was the fact that the Pirbright establishment was in his constituency and was important to a number of his constituents. The 1st Battalion the Rifles is based at Beachley barracks, on the southern tip of my constituency, and I have spent a great deal of time supporting it. I was privileged to be invited to join members of the battalion for their pre-deployment, before they embarked on their first tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2009. I was fortunate enough also to join them—all too briefly—in theatre to observe their operations. The battalion contains a number of foreign and Commonwealth members, and I have provided many of them with advice on immigration matters in my capacity as their constituency Member of Parliament. I know this measure will be welcome, and I hope it will benefit one or two of them as well.
	I also draw on my own experience from the last Parliament when I was a shadow Defence Minister and I had the opportunity to visit a number of armed forces establishments and meet many people who serve in our armed forces. From that, I know what a great contribution they make to our country both here and overseas. It is right to acknowledge that some Members of this House have served in our armed forces, including the Whip who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). This matter is just one small part of the armed forces covenant and the process we are undertaking, which I think is very valuable.
	I will not talk about the covenant at length, as I know that would test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to refer to it briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) drew attention to the fact—indeed, it was a public service announcement—that each year we publish a thorough report that is available in the Library. That report sets out very comprehensively the purpose of the covenant with a foreword by the Secretary of State, and it also sets out a range of measures we have taken across Government policy to deliver benefits and to remove discrimination in respect of serving personnel.
	I also want to refer to the embedding of the work we do with external groups as part of that process. There is a covenant reference group, the successor to the original external reference group. It includes service charities and those very knowledgeable about these areas. I recently had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the ministerial
	committee looking at these matters and the covenant reference group. It was held at No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister attended for a period. That close working between Government and the service charities means we have been able to deliver on these achievements, and it is one reason why this measure is supported by a number of organisations and not, as far as we know, opposed by any.
	Veterans Aid says:
	“We warmly welcome any initiative that removes obstacles to those who have served this country with honour from settling here legally and have campaigned on this issue. Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign & Commonwealth servicemen and women disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy…This was an injustice and we applaud the Government for listening.”
	I am grateful for those generous words. I worked with Veterans Aid when I was a shadow Minister and it is good that it has welcomed this move. The Army Families Federation has also welcomed it and fully supports the changes.
	I should say at this point that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for two things. First, she put on record her party’s support for the work our armed forces do. That is a good cross-party acknowledgment which we can never hear too often. Secondly, she formally put on record the official Opposition’s support for this private Member’s Bill, which I hope means it has a relatively smooth passage through this House and the other place. You were not in the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to the citizenship test and I am very pleased to say that she passed one bit by being able to confirm that she knew there were two Houses of this Parliament. Once the Bill is finished in this one, it will wing its way to the other House, where I hope it will be as successfully endorsed and can then reach the statute book.
	We had a wide-ranging discussion on the citizenship test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you will be delighted to know—as I am sure Mr Speaker would be if he were here—that although I have a copy of the guide containing all the material used for the citizenship test, I left it in my office so I will not be tempted to draw on it at length or, indeed, at all. My hon. Friend brought her copy with her, however, so she was not as disadvantaged as I am. I know that she did slightly test the patience of Mr Speaker, but he clearly was not upset with her, as he then referred to her “racy and intoxicating” speech. I have never made one of those in this House, and the Whip is probably hoping that I never do so. However, her speech was very welcome, and I am grateful for not only her support, but that of colleagues.
	A number of hon. Members raised important points about the Bill, and I wish to deal with a couple of them. First, however, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking was supported formally in his Bill by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who appended their names to it. It is worth saying that they are fully in support of it. For the benefit of colleagues in the House, the Home Office sought the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to prepare some explanatory notes, which he gave. I hope that the notes are helpful, and I know that a number of hon. Members have drawn on them today.
	The explanatory notes briefly set out the purpose of the Bill and the fact that it amends the 1981 Act. Although I was not intending to go through this at length, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) both asked for a little more detail about how the naturalisation rules work and whether they are automatic or otherwise. The notes deal with that, but I will take the opportunity to discuss it, although not at enormous length, because I know that that would test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will just set out for the House what the requirements are and how the Secretary of State uses her discretion, to the extent that she has it.
	Foreign and Commonwealth personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces generally apply to naturalise under section 6(1) of the 1981 Act, and they have to meet the following requirements: five years’ residence in the UK; be aged 18 or over; and be of sound mind, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire referred. My understanding is that the reference to “sound mind” in this context simply means that the person has the mental capacity to complete the application for naturalisation. I can reassure her that where a former member of the armed forces has a mental health problem, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, whether as a result of their service or otherwise, that would not prevent them from successfully applying for and securing naturalisation if they met the other rules. She rightly says that both in the armed forces and outside we have moved on in our understanding of such mental health conditions, and I am pleased to say that we do not, in any way, discriminate against people, be it deliberately or inadvertently, in this matter.
	Applicants must also intend to continue to live in the UK, or to continue in Crown service, the service of an international organisation of which the UK is a member, or the service of a company or association established in the UK. That will be relevant when I go on to talk about the overseas territories, to which my hon. Friend referred. Applicants must also be able to communicate in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic—I heard lots of sedentary interventions from Opposition Members when that was mentioned and, although I cannot speak it, I try to pronounce it correctly. Applicants should also have sufficient knowledge of life in the UK and, importantly, be of good character.
	I will not go through the residence requirements in enormous detail, but they are broadly that the person has been resident in the United Kingdom for at least five years; has been present in the UK five years before the date of application—that is, of course, where we run into the problem; and is free of immigration time restrictions on the date of application.
	Foreign and Commonwealth personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces are exempt from immigration while they are serving, which means they automatically meet the requirement to be in the UK without a time limit attached to their stay. The Secretary of State already has the discretion to overlook absences, and there are things in the rules that say for how many months someone is allowed to be outside the UK. She generally exercises her discretion in armed forces cases where the absence is caused by service overseas.
	Therefore, foreign and Commonwealth personnel in the forces are eligible to naturalise as British citizens after they have served for five years. Alternatively, under
	the immigration rules, they might qualify for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—on discharge, after four years’ service. They cannot obtain settlement in service because someone who holds indefinite leave to remain is subject to immigration control. If the person opts to be discharged and settles in the UK after four years’ service, they can apply to naturalise after they have held ILTR for one year, thus fulfilling the five-year residence requirement and the requirement not to have a time limit attached to their stay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to family members. Partners of members of the forces can qualify for naturalisation in their own right or as the spouse of someone naturalised. They have to meet the same requirements of residence and good character, but they are subject to immigration control, so they cannot meet the requirement not to have a time limit to their stay until they have obtained settlement, and it takes the partner of a service person four or five years to obtain settlement.

Edward Leigh: What does “settlement” mean? Say someone is married to a member of the armed forces and has been overseas most of the time. Their partner’s clock is ticking, but what is happening to their clock? Do they have to come back and gain settlement? I am sorry, but I do not quite understand how it works.

Mark Harper: The rules operate differently for the spouse. When serving, the service person is not subject to any immigration restrictions, so they could get naturalisation more quickly. Once they have been naturalised, that opens up some opportunities for their family member.
	New section 4C of the 1981 Act, introduced in January 2010, enables a child born to a member of the armed forces serving overseas on an operational posting who would have been born in the UK but for that posting to register as a British citizen on application. Children may also register as British citizens if a parent is naturalised or settles in the UK.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred to a specific case. Obviously, I would not go into a specific case in the House, and I do not have all the details to hand either. As a general rule, there is provision in the immigration system, outside the immigration rules, for people to make an application for leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The Secretary of State and I have the ability to allow that. Clearly, we would not set out the details, but look at the application in the round, but we can grant that if the case is sufficiently compelling.
	On the hon. Lady’s general point about testing the Secretary of State’s discretion, all the Secretary of State’s decisions in such matters are of course subject to judicial review. Although we do not use the powers frequently—that would drive a coach and horses through the rules—even during my time as Minister for Immigration we have allowed people to visit the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds when they would not normally have met the rules.
	It is helpful to be able to operate with such discretion, which is of course the purpose of the Bill. The requirement for an applicant to have been in the United Kingdom at the start of the five-year period is unwaivable, and the
	Secretary of State cannot waive it however compelling the case. That is the benefit of putting the Bill on the statute book.
	It is worth saying that there is already a provision, of which Members may not be aware, to waive that requirement in Crown service cases, but it applies only to those who are still in service and overseas when they apply. The Bill will enable the requirement to be waived for members and former members of the armed forces who have been discharged and have then applied for naturalisation or who have returned to the UK.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend might be going on to say this, but there is already a provision on the statute book, in section 39 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, that is identical to the provisions of the Bill. Why not use the legislation that is already on the statute book, rather than re-legislating?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend appears to be working seamlessly in tandem with me, because if I turn over the page of my brief, I can see that I was about to refer to the 2009 Act. His general point is good. I am not someone who wants to legislate when provisions already exist in primary legislation. In general, more legislation does not necessarily make the world better. He has a formidable reputation for ensuring that all provisions brought before the House are properly scrutinised and challenged to make sure that they are necessary.
	The reason we were not able to make the provision is that there was a provision in the 2009 Act to which he refers. However, it was all bound up with the earned citizenship measures that the previous Government wanted to introduce, and it is not possible, I am advised by lawyers, to implement the armed forces provisions independently of the earned citizenship measures because they contain references to the provisions that are not being implemented. That is why it was necessary to implement the provisions separately.
	We announced in July 2010 that we would not be proceeding with the earned citizenship provisions in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, because we felt that the previous Government’s provisions under those regimes were considerably more complicated and bureaucratic than the current arrangements and would have imposed unwelcome administrative and bureaucratic costs on both central and local government and voluntary sector partners. Both parties represented in the coalition Government voiced concerns about those measures during their parliamentary passage.
	So although there are measures on the statute book, they are bound up with measures that we do not wish to commence, and they cannot be commenced separately. I think I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch the reassurance that he seeks, which is that this provision is necessary. There is not a current provision on the statute book that could be commenced by itself which would enable us to achieve the aim. Although I know that he is normally and rightly sceptical of legislating, I can assure him, given that he and others have welcomed the purpose of the Bill, that it is necessary to do so in the Bill. There is no existing provision on the statute book that we could use. I hope he will find that reassuring.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire referred to the British overseas territories. I will not repeat the list that she read out, but she may be interested in one fact. She mentioned the Cayman Islands. It may interest the House to know that as of 6 September the Cayman Islands has a new governor, Helen Kilpatrick. The only reason why I mention that is that until she was governor of the Cayman Islands, she was the director general of finance and corporate services at the Home Office and is now resplendent, having been appointed by Her Majesty the Queen from 6 September, as governor of the Cayman Islands. It is not relevant to the Bill, but as I am a Minister in the Home Office and worked closely with Helen Kilpatrick, and as my hon. Friend mentioned the Cayman Islands, I thought there was sufficient reason to mention it in the House. But I digress only briefly.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the British overseas territories and whether somebody living in an overseas territory could naturalise under the provisions of the Bill. I mentioned in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough in my list of conditions that normally the person is supposed to want to settle and live in the United Kingdom, so if someone was settling in an overseas territory, they would not normally be able to naturalise under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act because they would not meet the requirement of intending to make their principal home in the United Kingdom. They could qualify if they were intending to continue in Crown service. For example, if they still worked for the Crown and were based overseas in an overseas territory, that would apply.
	The appropriate route for somebody in that circumstance—a former member of the armed forces settled in an overseas territory—would be for them to apply for British overseas territory citizenship. They would then need to meet the requirements on the knowledge and good character test.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for giving way and for beginning to answer some of the questions that I raised about the territorial extent of the Bill. Does he have any plans to amend the territorial extent of the Bill in Committee, in the light of the fact that there seems to be some ambiguity about whether someone may reside in one of those other territories at the point at which they apply for British citizenship?

Mark Harper: The question is not so much where the person physically is when they apply, but what their intentions are. One of the requirements in the Act, as I read out, is that somebody is supposed to intend to continue to live in the United Kingdom. They are supposed to have residence in the United Kingdom or continue in Crown service. If they intend to continue to live in the overseas territory, they ought to apply for British overseas territory citizenship, rather than British citizenship, as in the Bill.

Harriett Baldwin: I know that I am being obtuse, but I do not understand what the purpose is, then, of having all the overseas and dependent territories in the territorial extent of the Bill.

Mark Harper: I would never accuse my hon. Friend of being obtuse. She and I had a great exchange on her previous private Member’s Bill, as she mentioned, when I occupied a different ministerial role. Of course, it is not just the overseas territories, because the Bill states that the Act will extend to England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories.
	On my hon. Friend’s specific question about why it is necessary to refer to the overseas territories, I will reflect on that and, I hope, come back to it at the end of my remarks. Her specific point was about where someone resides. If someone intended to live in an overseas territory, they would be applying for British overseas territory citizenship, rather than what we have been discussing today.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned the requirement to have a sufficient level of English and asked whether that requirement can be waived. The Secretary of State can waive the knowledge-of-life and language requirements for citizenship only in very limited circumstances, which are set out. That means someone who is under 18 or over 65 or someone with a specific physical or mental condition that prevents them from being able to fulfil the requirement. My view is that someone who has served for five years in our armed forces will have no problem with being able to speak English. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.

Harriett Baldwin: What I am really trying to clarify is that language acquisition takes place in a specific part of the brain, in the cerebral cortex, that can be damaged later in life, perhaps as the result of a stroke, so someone might have had a good command of English during their period of service but lost that later. Would the Secretary of State have the discretion to waive the requirement in those circumstances?

Mark Harper: The Secretary of State has the ability to waive the requirement if someone’s physical or mental condition is such that they cannot meet it. That would of course mean somebody who has had the particular medical circumstances my hon. Friend raises, and it would of course cover a former member of the armed forces who had suffered an injury in service that had damaged their ability to communicate. The Secretary of State will have the ability to waive that requirement in those circumstances. Assuming that someone does not suffer from that sort of disability, we would expect them to be able to speak English, and I do not think that would be a problem for someone who had served in our armed forces for a period.
	My hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Gainsborough referred to the extent to which applying for naturalisation was automatic. It is not automatic; it is something that is considered. There are requirements to be met. Some of them are tick-box requirements, such as how long they have resided, but some are more judgment-related, such as those about good character. For those, the Secretary of State has to apply a considerable amount of judgment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire referred to the new citizenship test that we have introduced, which is much more focused on understanding Britain, our history and culture and, in particular, our democratic values and institutions. I will probably make her blush,
	but she mentioned that she scored 100% in the test, and the pass mark is 75%, so she is well up there. She referred to how the statistics might have changed. I do not have the precise figures, but the pass rate under the old test was around 75%. It was getting higher as the tests became older and the question bank became out of date and the number of questions reduced. Now that we have introduced the new test, the pass rate has fallen a little, down to about 60%, so it is still quite a challenge. But citizenship is something that people should have to work for. She brandished a book earlier, and all the information required for the test is available. We do not expect people to know it all without putting some study in, but the information is all available.

Harriett Baldwin: Is the Minister saying that although the pass mark for both tests has remained at 75%, about 75% of people got through on the previous version of the test but the more recent data suggest that the pass rate has dropped to between 60% and 65%?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is spot on.
	I have now been inspired so let me answer my hon. Friend’s question about the territorial extent of the Bill. Because the Bill amends the British Nationality Act, we were keen to make the territorial extent the same. Because the BNA has provisions dealing with British overseas citizenship, it extends to the British overseas territories. If the extent of the amending Act were different, that could cause confusion and doubt in a case in which the overseas territories were involved. The amending Act therefore needs to have the same territorial extent as the Act that we are amending.

Harriett Baldwin: rose—

Mark Harper: I had hoped that that was a good explanation.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for his excellent explanation. It answers the question I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the territorial extent of the 1981 Act. However, it remains for me to ask the Minister whether, because this is a separate piece of legislation, it could have a narrower territorial extent in order to address some of the points I raised about the possibility that someone could not even live in the UK and still acquire British citizenship.

Mark Harper: I heard my hon. Friend ask that question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I think that he disabused us of our expectation that he was supposed to have followed all the detail when he reminded us that he was not in the House in 1981 when the Act was passed. Whether the original oversight was, to use his phrase, cock-up or conspiracy, I know not. I was only 11 when the Bill went through the House. I fear that I did not follow parliamentary proceedings very closely when I was 11—perhaps that is a terrible admission—and so I did not follow its passage very closely either. I suspect that he is right and it was more cock-up than conspiracy.
	When I was setting out the details on family circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough asked whether, to use his phrase, the
	clock was ticking. Family members of armed forces personnel are not exempt from immigration control, but, provided they have appropriate leave under the immigration rules, the time they spend with their armed forces sponsor, either in the UK or when they are on accompanied service, is time they can count towards naturalisation. They need to meet the residency requirements, but, as for service personnel, the Secretary of State has the discretion to waive and overlook those requirements if the absence from the UK was as a result of accompanying a person on service overseas. I hope that that is helpful and answers my hon. Friend. He is nodding, which suggests that that is the case.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about medical discharge. For settlement applications, the requirement for four years’ service can be waived if an illness or injury is attributable to service and is sustained in an operational theatre. If not, a number of factors will be considered, including the severity of the injury, length of service, the prognosis for recovery, and the applicant’s ability to support himself or herself. We may give limited leave where the applicant does not qualify for settlement but needs a period of recovery before they leave the United Kingdom. A member of the armed forces who is granted settlement following medical discharge will be able to apply for citizenship after 12 months. I do not know whether the specific case that the hon. Lady mentioned relates to one of her constituents. If so, and she wants to write to me to raise particular issues, I will obviously be happy to look into them and respond accordingly.
	I shall return to the remarks I intended to make—I have not made a great deal of progress because I have dealt with a number of questions. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said in introducing the Bill. The Government agree that it is wrong that a member of our armed forces should have to wait longer to gain citizenship just because they happened to be posted overseas at the relevant time. The service charities have told us that, and it was recognised as a priority commitment under the armed forces covenant. Once implemented, the Bill will enable us to overlook the requirement to be in the UK on day one of the qualifying period for naturalisation in the same way that we overlook the requirement to have resided in the UK.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough or my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I forget which, because they were sitting next to each other and both raised a number of points—asked whether the Bill will be retrospective. The Bill will not be retrospective in the sense that it will go back and alter anyone’s existing naturalisation status. However, there is a retrospective element in the sense that the Bill will look back at what happened to applications five years ago and where people were. When the Bill is enacted, not being in the UK at the beginning of the five-year period will cease to be a disadvantage. To that extent, the Bill will not be retrospective, but it will not alter the position of someone who has gone through the process of making an application.
	When the Bill becomes law—I hope it will—someone who made a failed application or who held off making an application and had to wait for a longer period because they did not meet the requirement will be in a
	position to make an application under the new rules. If the other conditions are met, the Secretary of State will be in a position to overlook the requirement to have been in the UK at the beginning of the process. The Bill will therefore benefit people who are not currently serving but who have served previously, and that will be welcome.

Christopher Chope: I raised the issue of retrospection. As a result of the retrospective nature of the Bill, how many people will be eligible who would not otherwise have been eligible?

Mark Harper: It is difficult to be precise, because we do not know how many foreign and commonwealth members of the armed forces would necessarily want to become British citizens. We estimate—that word has been used previously—that 100 to 200 members of the armed forces each year could benefit from the Bill. That estimate is based on the number of people who seek naturalisation and the number of those who could benefit. That is the order of magnitude. It is not a huge number, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, that relatively small number of people have served our country. In the past decade, many of them have probably served our country in an operational theatre on not just one occasion, but on several occasions.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Jonathan Lord: rose—

Mark Harper: As it is my hon. Friend’s Bill, I will take his intervention first before listening to the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Jonathan Lord: Perhaps my intervention will pre-empt a further one. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is interested in, and perhaps even concerned about, the retrospective element of the Bill. However, I should point out to him that, by the Bill’s nature, the time elapsed will mean that the people affected— whether they live in the UK, are in the armed services or are in Crown service and wish to naturalise as British citizens and live in the UK—will already have qualified. In that sense, there are no great numbers waiting for any retrospective aspect of the Bill. They will already qualify. I hope that that point is helpful.

Mark Harper: It is helpful. Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it is worth saying that the disadvantage suffered by members of the armed forces under the existing legal position did not mean that they could not seek naturalisation. The disadvantage was that they had to wait longer than someone who was not serving overseas.
	To the extent that the disadvantage they suffered was a delay in seeking naturalisation, my hon. Friend is right that the people who suffered from that disadvantage in the past will almost certainly have been in a position to seek naturalisation since.

Christopher Chope: My concern was about eligibility: I did not ask how many people would take advantage of the Bill. I wanted to know how many people would legally be eligible. That brings us back to the big national debate about how many people are eligible to come here
	from Bulgaria and Romania to work, compared with the number of people who will come. How many will be eligible as a result of the retrospection?

Mark Harper: The difficulty with answering that question is that, technically, everyone who is a foreign or Commonwealth member of the armed forces could potentially, depending on their circumstances, be eligible. The problem is that the provision will make a difference only if five years before the point at which someone makes an application for naturalisation they were not in the UK because of their service. It would be impossible to go through everyone’s record of service and do that calculation, because we do not know how many will apply for naturalisation or how many would have been delayed in seeking naturalisation because of where they were five years before making the application.
	We think that the number who will not have to suffer a delay is in the order of 100 to 200, and that is based on the fact that most foreign and Commonwealth personnel do not have this problem. Veterans Aid talked of “many cases”, but that is more tens and hundreds, rather than thousands. It also said that the Bill would help “quite a few” of their clients, and our estimate of 100 to 200 is based on our knowledge of the process and on talking to those service charities that talk to people who have fallen foul of the existing provision. It is our combined intelligence that enables us to say that it is around 100 or 200. That is the kind of number that we are thinking about. Those who are concerned about the numbers need not worry that the Bill will extend to thousands of people. A relatively small number of people will be affected, but it is important to make the change for the benefit of those people who have served their country. In the last decade, many of those people have served not only in the armed forces generally, but in an active operational theatre, so it is important that the House makes sure that they are not disadvantaged.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch also wanted some clarification of the MOD’s general position on the number of foreign and Commonwealth service personnel. This is largely an issue for the Army, rather than the other two branches. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North also referred to the numbers. In a written statement on 11 July—relatively recently—made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the MOD said that it would now be enforcing the five-year UK residence requirement when recruiting Commonwealth personnel. The residency rules already exist for Commonwealth recruits to the regular armed forces, but since 1998 they have been waived. My right hon. Friend informed the House that from 11 July those residency rules will be more strictly enforced, which means that applicants to the armed forces will have to demonstrate that they have lived in the UK for five years lawfully—with leave to remain. That requirement will not affect Gurkhas, because they are recruited only in Nepal under separate arrangements agreed with their Government. If my hon. Friend wants more detail, he can look at the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
	Without wishing to be too slopey-shouldered about it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has detailed questions about the attitude of the Ministry of Defence and recruitment processes and so on, to which
	I think he alluded, I suggest he speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not think that the Home Office wants to start trespassing on those requirements, although it is worth putting on the record that as a result of the work we have done on the covenant, officials and Ministers in my Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have worked very closely to ensure that the system does not disadvantage anyone. I know that that has been welcomed by members of service charities, who have seen an improvement in how we deal with service personnel, their families and former personnel when they go through immigration and naturalisation stages.
	This is probably a good time, as I move towards the end of my remarks, to say that the Home Office takes its responsibilities under the armed forces covenant very seriously. In addition to this proposed legislative measure, we have made good progress against a number of our other commitments. We introduced a new process earlier this year, where service leavers could obtain settlement on—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I would just say to the Minister that of course the covenant provides important context, but only where it is relevant to the Bill. I hope he is not now going to go into a rather lengthy set of comments about other items in the covenant. I hope he will stick to the Bill, because time is ticking on.

Mark Harper: I am conscious of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not have a lengthy list. It is a short list and the reason for raising it is that it is relevant to the Bill. For example, we have made provision whereby service leavers can obtain settlement on the day of discharge. Of course, settlement for some is the precursor to seeking naturalisation. That is important, because there is not then a gap. Several hon. Members referred to making sure that there is no gap, so that personnel have settled status and no problem in seeking support from the Government or elsewhere.
	I will not, Madam Deputy Speaker, test your patience by reading out the list, but I would like to draw to the attention of the House the new set of armed forces rules that will come into force in December. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I laid out the details in a written ministerial statement on 4 July, to which I draw the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the subject. The new rules will address a number of areas that have been problematic in the past, and I hope that that is helpful.
	I will not refer to every paper in my sheaf, but I want to refer to a couple of important questions that came up in the debate. We take the criminality or good character provisions seriously, but we have made a change, which was referred to by at least one Member. Any offences that are offences in service law but not in normal criminal law will no longer be treated in a way that is not subject to judgment. There were a number of cases where it was felt that service personnel who had had a conviction under military law that would not have had the same level of seriousness in civilian criminal law had suffered, and that we had had no ability to judge their case in the round, based on their service. We do, of course, expect the highest standards from our armed forces and apply the same standards as those for civilians.
	Non-criminal convictions or disciplinary offences are considered when good character is considered, but there is no automatic factor in ruling out somebody. A number of hon. Members referred to that issue, so I thought it was right to deal with it.
	A couple of Members referred to what was encapsulated by the definition of “the armed forces”. The definition is the same as that used in the Armed Forces Act and, for the avoidance of doubt, applies to those who serve in our reserve forces, to which several Members have referred.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge gave a wide-ranging speech, in which she referred to some of the service charities and the points they have made about the service they received from what was the UK Border Agency. It is worth putting it on the record that the splitting of the UK Border Agency and the creation of UK Visas and Immigration, which is the relevant part of the Home Office that deals with naturalisation applications, means that we are focused on delivering better customer service. Some of the changes we announced in the written statement mean that we will be better able to look at applications from the armed forces, which will be made on a special, separate application form, to ensure that we can deliver a settlement on the day of discharge.

Christopher Chope: I think the Minister is nearing the end of his remarks, but before he does, can he address my question about why this issue cannot be dealt with in the forthcoming immigration Bill? Doing so would enable us to consider, for example, the case that I raised of a constituent who has been out in Russia for a long time, because she has been married to a British citizen living out there, looking after their children. She has been unable to apply for naturalisation because she has not been living in the UK.

Mark Harper: Without tempting Madam Deputy Speaker to chastise me, what I would say is that if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at the details. At the end of my remarks, I will set out briefly why the immigration Bill would not be the right place to deal with this issue, but I will not do so at any length.
	Let me finish what I was saying in response to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge raised. I hope that former members of the armed forces and the service charities they deal with will notice—indeed, I hope they have noticed—an improved level of customer service from UK Visas and Immigration. That is certainly something that the Home Office wants to achieve, and I hope we will be able to deliver that.
	Before I close my remarks, let me briefly address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised earlier—to be fair, I said that I would do so. His question was: why would it not have been appropriate to deal with this issue in the immigration Bill? The short answer is that that Bill addresses three topics: first, access to public services; secondly, putting into primary legislation the rules on article 8 that the House put in the immigration rules last year; and thirdly, dealing with appeals and removals. That Bill does not make changes to the nationality provisions of our legislation,
	because I did not want its scope to be that wide. I wanted to focus on the Government’s priorities for reforming the immigration system; I did not want us to get bogged down in the many nationality questions that I know we might otherwise have considered.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has introduced a focused Bill, dealing with a genuine problem. It is not a problem that affects thousands of people; rather, it affects potentially hundreds of people, but they are people who have done great service to our country. The approach he has adopted, in introducing a very focused Bill that has support from both sides of the House—the official Opposition and the Government—is the right way to proceed. I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and a fair wind in reaching the statute book.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am rather surprised to see the hon. Gentleman standing. He has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate and he did not seek to speak before the Minister gave his response—in detail and at length—to the questions that were raised. As a member of the Panel Chairs, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the courtesies of the House, so I am sure he will agree with me that we should now give the concluding remarks to the Member who moved the Second Reading motion on this private Member’s Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) would not want to show any discourtesy to the House, would he?

Christopher Chope: If you are inviting me to comment on what you just said—

Dawn Primarolo: I am not inviting you, Mr Chope. My question was rhetorical in its nature. I am nudging you gently, as a member of the Panel, to agree with me that the courtesies of the House should stand.

Christopher Chope: I did speak to you in your position in the Chair to indicate that I would seek to catch your eye in order to make a short contribution after the Minister had spoken. If you had said to me at that stage that you would not call me at this point, I would have sought to make my contribution earlier. I was here at the very beginning of the debate, and I have made a lot of interventions. I have been here for almost all of the Minister’s response. It is a matter for your discretion whether you call me to make a short contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that with you. I put on record that I would not wish any discourtesy to the House, even if I were not a member of the Panel of Chairs.

Dawn Primarolo: Indeed, and I am sure that you would not wish any discourtesy to me as the occupant of the Chair by assuming that your notification that you intended to follow an unusual procedure would result in my consenting to that, because it does not. We all know the rules, don’t we Mr Chope? This is the last day, however, and if you will make only a very few comments—I shall be timing you, Mr Chope, and
	shall not hesitate to intervene—you may have a few minutes to make your contribution before I call Mr Lord. But this will be the one and only time that you will be able to do this.

Christopher Chope: I feel a heavy weight on my shoulders, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence.
	I have expressed concern on a number of occasions about the integrity and comprehensibility of our statute book. The Minister said earlier that the reason that we could not use the existing wording in section 39 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 was that it was “all bound up with the earned citizenship measures”. The Government have said that they will not proceed with the implementation of the earned citizenship provisions, so they will have to legislate separately. If the Government do not wish to proceed with the earned citizenship provisions in the 2009 Act, surely those provisions should be repealed, rather than being left in limbo. If they are left in limbo, it will be open to a subsequent Government to commence them.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) will be able to deal with this matter during the later stages of his Bill. The Bill seems to be amending section 39 of the 2009 Act, rather than repealing it, thereby compounding the felony of making the statute book even more difficult to comprehend. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to this point now, but at some stage during the Bill’s progress, we need to work out why we are keeping on the statute book provisions that the Government say they oppose. Why will the Government not repeal them? Why are they seeking to amend a section of the 2009 Act that they do not wish to implement? Would it not be better to legislate de novo?
	Those are the short points that I wanted to make, and I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Jonathan Lord: I saw the Minister nodding vigorously as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was making his points, so it looks as though that matter will be addressed. I agree with the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
	I would like to thank all Members who have attended and contributed to today’s debate. I particularly thank the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
	(Sir Robert Smith) for waiting so patiently for his Bill to be debated, and I can assure him that I will not prevent that from happening for much longer.
	I would like to put on record my thanks to hon. Friends and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Stourbridge (Margot James) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) all made interesting and perceptive points, contributing a great deal to the debate that we have just enjoyed. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his perceptive and inquisitorial interventions and his tidying-up at the end, ensuring that there will be no loose ends on the statute book as a result of this Bill’s going on it.
	I would greatly like to thank Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for their support and particularly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her contribution. Her support and that of all Members is extremely welcome. This should be a cross-party measure, and it looks as though it will be.
	I greatly thank, too, the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for being here throughout the debate, for speaking at some length in support of my Bill and for answering the questions, some of which were above my pay grade and some of which would have baffled even the most legal and scholastic minds. My hon. Friend the Minister knows this stuff backwards and I think he answered everything to every Member’s satisfaction. I look forward to working with him and the Government and with other Members and parties as we take the Bill forward, I hope, into Committee and its further stages.
	With the approval of Members, it is my hope that, in building on the armed forces covenant, this Bill will be a further signal sent out both to those servicemen and women who currently hold a UK passport and are British citizens and to those who do not—those who have joined our armed forces for Queen and country and, in a sense, for the common wealth and the common good. The public and their parliamentary representatives are on their side in the difficult jobs they do in this country and around the world. They should be treated with the respect and dignity that their hard work and sacrifice deserve.
	In thanking all hon. Members again for their support, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Bill

Second Reading.

Robert Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) for his kind words, and I congratulate him on getting his Bill through to the next stage.
	There has long been a frustration about additional charges for delivery to certain parts of the United Kingdom. This Bill is designed to shine a spotlight on the issue, highlight it and come up with some remedy to help move us in the direction of a fairer and more sensible system. The Bill requires
	“online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in the UK; and for connected purposes.”
	In respect of this frustration in many parts of the UK, there are three concerns: the excessive charges for delivery to certain parts of the UK; the lack of transparency about those charges; and the often arbitrary nature of how those charges are calculated. There is a long-standing campaign by many in Scotland to try and tackle the issue. I am following in the footsteps of many others who have highlighted it, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) who has a classic example of the arbitrary nature of this problem. Although his constituency is in mainland Scotland, it has the KW postcode—Kirkwall, in Orkney—so most websites classify him as coming from an island, and treat him as such for delivery purposes. Retailers need to look more carefully at how their systems allocate charges and identify areas that will be more expensive to deliver to.
	Another issue is the excessiveness and lack of transparency of the charges. Citizens Advice Scotland, in an excellent research paper entitled, “The Postcode Penalty”, published in December 2012, made it quite clear that 1 million Scots face surcharges, late delivery or are refused delivery shopping online. The Bill would tackle the issue in relation to online shopping by ensuring that people have a clear and concise idea of what they face before starting the shopping process.
	On the website fairerdeliverycharges.net, which is part of the campaign, one person commented:
	“About time this discrimination was dealt with as well as over charging by couriers, was once quoted £275.00 to the island but £45.00 to Ullapool. Complained and it was dropped to £75 to island, saying that was what the courier quoted them before they asked for reprice”.
	The shopper online is shopping with the retailer, which then negotiates the delivery contracts. We want to encourage the retailer to think more carefully about the needs of the shopper and to make a better attempt at negotiation. As the example shows, the shopper just had to intervene and the charged dropped from £275 to £75, so the initial charge was clearly excessive and not thought out.
	On the lack of transparency, I visited a constituent recently who went online to buy radiators for their house. The usual delivery cost was £20, but when they got to the end of the process, the cost increased to
	£60 for delivery to anywhere in the north-east and north of Scotland. The north-east of Scotland is not remote rural. It is the Aberdeen postcode—a major city, the oil and gas capital of Europe, and a major, thriving part of the UK economy.

Mel Stride: May I clarify that there is nothing interventionist in the Bill that the hon. Gentleman proposes? I presume that there is no attempt to intervene in the amounts that those selling products on the internet are charging to those receiving them, but that the intention is to ensure transparency so that when shoppers go online they are aware up-front of the amount being sought by way of carriage, before they click to complete the purchase.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman has summed up extremely well the nature and purpose of the Bill. It is about shining a spotlight and transparency, so that shoppers do not have to spend ages shopping online only to discover at the end of the process, having put in all that effort, that they will have to face excessive charges, and then have to shop around elsewhere. The other benefit of early notification will be to encourage retailers to think more carefully about how they calculate those charges and about the nature of those charges.

Michael Weir: In parts of Scotland, postcodes cover a huge area. For example, the DD8 to DD11 postcodes cover my constituency. I live in DD9. Brechin, the town in which I live, is just off the main road between Dundee and Aberdeen, but the postcode covers the whole area of the Glens. That is part of the problem.

Robert Smith: It is indeed. Postcodes exist for Royal Mail’s purposes, to allocate addresses, but many people piggy-back on to them and then do not recognise the need to be more sophisticated and break them down further in order to establish the true nature of deliveries. Citizens Advice Scotland noted that it was possible for a delivery van to travel from a retailer in England to Edinburgh via the borders, passing houses whose occupants would end up paying excessive charges because they were further away from Edinburgh, although the van was passing their front doors and could have dropped the stuff off without having to go to Edinburgh. A resident of Inverness had to pay a £25 delivery charge despite living just two miles from the Inverness postal depot. Another highlands resident was shocked to discover when ordering a gift certificate from an electronics and camera retailer that there was a £15 charge for delivery, although the certificate was simply a postal card for which the normal rate could have been charged. That is another classic example of the failure of retailers to think when shopping around for delivery purposes.
	The purpose of the Bill is to introduce more transparency and clarity. It requires the making of regulations, but does not introduce them itself; it allows the Government a year following its enactment in which to negotiate, consult and present the regulations to the House, which would then prescribe an early declaration of the charges for regional delivery so that shoppers could decide immediately whether or not to use a business advertised on a certain website.

Mel Stride: What penalty does the hon. Gentleman envisage for a business using the internet which failed to comply with the requirements that he is seeking?

Robert Smith: The Bill requires the Government to state in the regulations the penalties that would be applied. They would obviously have to consult on that during the process of drawing up the regulations. One penalty might be a requirement to comply, and to place the details of the charges on the website so that they are established and clear.
	Members will be reassured to learn that I have opted for the affirmative process. Any regulations that are produced as a result of the Bill will have to be debated and voted on in the House, so that Members can scrutinise them in detail. We do not want to impose excessive regulation or unnecessary burdens on industry. When the market is failing, giving more information to consumers can help it to become more focused and effective and to deliver a better deal to consumers, while also ensuring that retailers can sell their products in a competitive market.

Christopher Chope: The Bill is confined to online retailers. What about ordinary retailers? If someone goes into, say, John Lewis and orders some goods, the shop assistant will not say at the outset “Where do you live? If you live in x it will cost you y.” The transaction will continue, and at the end of it the assistant will ask for the customer’s name and address, and will say “If you live in the highlands and islands, there will be a delivery surcharge.” Why should an online retailer have to say in advance what the costs will be?

Robert Smith: Because it is much easier to ask about delivery in the shop. The nature of the exchange is more fluid. The customer can set the agenda and get the information they want before purchasing, whereas online, the information is not available until the end of the transaction. The online customer will have put in a lot of effort to get to that point of the maze and, having been led all that way, will feel immense frustration and anger at being clobbered at the end of the process. This problem has also been dealt with for airline bookings and credit card charges. They were being whacked on at the very end of the process, but now airlines have to be more upfront and be realistic about the charges.
	I want to thank the Members who have supported the Bill: my right hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy), my hon. Friends the Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for Angus (Mr Weir), for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). This is an extensive problem affecting large parts of the United Kingdom, mainly in the highlands and the north of Scotland but also extending down to the borders and the islands of England—the Isle of Wight, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly.
	The Bill must be part of a wider awareness-raising process, because the retailers need to be more focused. They are thinking of the vast majority of their customers
	when they think of a delivery system, and they are not shopping around for one that will deal with those at the margins. Many retailers should consider using Royal Mail’s universal service delivery products for those areas that cannot be served by couriers. Bringing retailers together and shining a spotlight on this issue will help them to understand the frustration that is felt. The Bill would end that frustration and I commend it to the House.

Ian Murray: It is a great pleasure again to be in the House with the Minister, and to be going through this important Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for introducing it. I know he has been running this campaign for some time, and it is becoming a major issue that deserves the respect of the House. The Opposition certainly welcome his Bill, which brings attention to an area of consumer policy that has, particularly since the advent of online shopping, brought difficulties for individuals and businesses in most parts of rural UK, but especially the highlands and islands of Scotland, where his constituency is located.
	The hon. Gentleman and other Members representing rural constituencies have heard from their constituents about some of the problems that have arisen with the delivery charges of online retailers. The growth in internet sales over recent years has been considerable and a report by IMRG found that the estimated value of UK online shopping in 2012 was £78 billion. There was 300% growth in mobile commerce last year alone. In 2012 the estimated value of global business in customer e-commerce was €825 billion. The annual cost of failed UK online deliveries is about £800 million, which is a considerable sum.
	This is a major industry for the UK’s economy. It is not only the economy as a whole that benefits; there are significant savings for consumers in online shopping, and that should be spread around the entire economy regardless of whereabouts in the UK people live. We know confident consumers are key drivers of the economy, creating the demand for goods and services that provides jobs, stimulates innovation, creates wealth and contributes to the Exchequer. In a well-functioning economy, knowledgeable, informed and empowered consumers can drive up standards and drive down prices. We have seen that with online retailing.
	However, despite the economic benefits of access to the internet and the potential savings for the consumer, people in rural and remote parts of the UK report that high delivery costs are a strong disincentive to online shopping. We discussed some of those issues just last week in the Backbench Business Committee debate on the impact of postal services in rural areas. Consumer Focus—now the aptly named Consumer Futures—found that consumers are unclear as to how parcel delivery charges are established. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine mentioned minor changes to postcodes that allow people just outside Aberdeen to be charged as if they lived on the islands of Scotland. It is reasonable, therefore, that parcel delivery operators should do their utmost to provide a clearer rationale for their pricing structure at the outset. Retailers and parcel delivery operators should ensure that pricing mechanisms do not arbitrarily give customers surcharges because
	they live in a particular area, for example by having one charge for all customers in a large geographical postcode area.
	In some cases, consumers find out that an item will not be delivered to them only once they have completed their online purchase, and indeed, sometimes after that. Again, that goes against some customer regulations already in place. We should be clearer about all the regulations in the draft Consumer Rights Bill, which the Minister has introduced as an attempt to deal with this problem. We look forward to working with her on that Bill.
	We must also remember that it is the interests of a business to make delivery charges transparent for customers, because people who are treated well when they use online retail and find that the charges are reasonable and transparent will go back to the same business. So this is also incredibly important to businesses, and the Bill will provide help there too.
	I am slightly struggling with the next part of my speech because I gave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) when I had to disappear for an urgent meeting at 12 o’clock; he was going to deal with the Bill on my behalf, so I handed him my speech. He has written on it, “This speech is appalling.” I do not know whether he wanted me to add that comment to my speech, but I thank him for the annotation to this particular page.
	We have to be clear not only about delivery charges that cause problems, but other particular issues, so let me reflect for a few moments on yesterday’s announcement of the privatisation of Royal Mail and the intended stock exchange flotation. The Bill does not mention this, but I know that the campaign by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for fairer pricing includes a compulsory referral to Royal Mail because it has the one-price-goes-anywhere, six-day service—although it is a five-day service for parcels.

Robert Smith: I think a compulsory approach would fall foul of European regulations; we are encouraging and raising awareness of the products available from Royal Mail under the universal service.

Ian Murray: I agree that my language was probably a bit strong, because the hon. Gentleman’s campaign calls on retailers that charge surcharges to offer delivery by Royal Mail as an alternative. He is right to highlight that point. However, one of the key contradictions is that there are concerns about the universal service obligation being difficult to deliver and maintain in a privatised Royal Mail. If his intention is to offer the Royal Mail as an alternative, that demonstrates the power of the universal service obligation in rural areas. It is important that we highlight those concerns when the flotation of the Royal Mail is undergoing its passage through this House, because it will have a significant impact on his constituents in rural areas if the USO is under threat.

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the USO is enshrined in law, so the only threat to it is this Parliament deciding that it does not want to protect and keep the service. What is crucial is making
	sure that Parliament honours the legislation. Bringing more investment into Royal Mail should help it to compete more effectively with those whom his Government brought in far too quickly and too deeply to compete against it.

Ian Murray: I do not want to drift into discussing Royal Mail, because you would frown on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and because we want this Bill to get through—we support it. However, may I just make one comment in response to that intervention? Laws can be changed; that is what this House is for. They can be changed at any point. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) told us yesterday, many of the laws relating to the USO can be altered by statutory instrument in this House, and that can be done fairly quickly. I understand and fully support the fact that the USO is written in law, but the law can be changed at any time.
	If this Bill does not get the proper passage that it deserves, will the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine table amendments when the draft Consumer Rights Bill comes before the House? If this Bill does not get on to the statute book, I am sure that this Minister would certainly welcome such amendments. We would certainly support them in Committee in order to make this slightly more transparent, and I hope that he would be able to table them.
	Online retail is a huge industry, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this Bill to us. I know that many colleagues in rural Scotland share the same concerns, and it is not acceptable not to have transparency of charges. All I would do is encourage customers who feel that they are not getting transparent charges to use an alternative, if there is one. The Bill deserves to get its passage through the House.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on introducing the Bill. I very much welcome his work to raise awareness of the issue. He and others from across the House have campaigned hard, because their constituents are particularly affected.
	People living in very rural and remote areas may expect or be used to deliveries not being straightforward. If people live on an island, they know from experience that for something to reach the island it has to be flown in or come in on a ferry. That can impact on the costs of all sorts of things. Although we want such consumers have good information, my hon. Friend rightly outlined that people living in the suburbs of Aberdeen, who are not in a remote area by any definition, might not be in the same mindset of expecting suddenly to be hit by massive delivery charges.
	I support the principles of clarity, transparency and fairness for consumers that lie behind my hon. Friend’s Bill. Those principles are fully supported by the Government and, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned, they also underlie the draft Consumer Rights Bill that is being scrutinised by the House.
	It is right that consumers should be clear about delivery information when they shop online or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, when they shop anywhere. We certainly aim to provide much greater clarity for consumers. There is no reason why consumers in some parts of the country should experience a postcode lottery on delivery charges or not receive clear and up-front information about any additional delivery restrictions or charges that might apply to their location, particularly if that occurs late in the booking process. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made it clear that the problem is not that such information is not provided before the purchase of a product. However, a significant investment of time might have gone into browsing and working out the right products to buy, either for oneself or as a gift. When somebody spends significant time doing that and is suddenly hit with an extra delivery charge, it can be very frustrating.

Jonathan Lord: There is probably great sympathy in the House for the thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) is trying to achieve, but am I right that it could probably be sorted out through guidance, trading standards or regulation, rather than primary legislation?

Jo Swinson: I intend to come on to that point. Legislation already protects consumers in many ways, but there is clearly an issue about how well it is enforced and about what more we can do to ensure that it is enforced. I am certainly committed to working with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and others to ensure that we deal with the problem through existing channels, as well as to see whether we can do more. We want to make sure that consumers are not disadvantaged by suddenly being notified of delivery charges late in the buying process.
	Citizens Advice Scotland reported on the issue last year. It found that consumers encounter a range of problems. One is obviously that of additional delivery charges, but delivery performance can also often be a difficulty: as well as extra charges for the location, there is sometimes an outright refusal to deliver to a particular address or an unfair categorisation of a location as more remote than it actually is. Hon. Members have raised the problem of postcode areas that are quite large and cover places that are remote as well as others that are not.
	Delivery charges and arrangements need to be made available early in the ordering process, because they are particularly important for some consumers; if not, that can add to the problems faced by those consumers in researching and investing time in sourcing the products that they want to buy. Underpinning all that is a recognition that the more confident consumers are about what they are buying and about having those products delivered in a reasonable way and at a reasonable price, the more confident they will be to buy, which is helpful for our economy. Creating confident consumers is absolutely what we want.
	Let us consider what the law already does in this area. It is clear in requiring traders to provide all consumers, wherever they live, with information on freight, delivery or postal charges when inviting consumers to purchase
	products. That wording is particularly relevant. The invitation to purchase is the key point. There may be a difference in how some people define that point in the process, or some retailers may just be thoughtless, as my hon. Friend outlined. But if some retailers think that invitation to purchase occurs only at the very end of the process when the consumer clicks “Pay”, they might think that that is an acceptable time to give the information about the delivery charges. Clearly, others might interpret invitation to purchase as occurring at a much earlier point, when the consumer is browsing the website or the shopping app and is implicitly invited to purchase.
	Specific requirements are set down for contracts concluded via electronic means. The consumer rights directive that the Government intend to implement by next summer will require traders to ensure that their website indicates clearly, at the very latest at the beginning of the ordering process, whether any delivery restrictions apply. I emphasise that that is at the very latest. The best practice would be for that information to be made available much earlier in the process.

Robert Smith: Would it be in scope for my hon. Friend to issue guidance to industry about best practice and about the possibility of implementing it on a voluntary basis?

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I would be delighted to do that. With the consumer rights directive and the consumer bill of rights that will come before the House later in the year, we will be publishing not just regulations and legislation, but guidance to go alongside that. It would be an excellent idea to include in that guidance information about how retailers might best serve their consumers and comply with the spirit of the regulations about giving that information and making it clear for consumers.
	It is therefore important, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, that businesses are made aware of the extent of customer dissatisfaction with the current situation, and of the potential loss of business arising from delivery policies that may be fit for purpose for some parts of the country but not for others. When businesses are made aware of the situation, there can sometimes be success. Consumer Focus Scotland last year reported a case where a consumer queried the high surcharge for delivery and the retailer happily agreed to use another parcel delivery operator who charged much less to deliver the items.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the rather excessive £235 courier charge that one of his constituents encountered, which was dropped to as low as £75 when it was challenged. That is still a significant cost but, as a proportion of the original price charged, it was significantly less. I was rather shocked by my hon. Friend’s example of someone who was charged £15 for the delivery of a simple gift certificate, which does not need to go by courier service. An item of that size could go in the normal post. Such examples need to be highlighted.
	It is reasonable for consumers to ask for items to be sent via Royal Mail under the universal service obligation, which may not be as cheap as a courier company can offer for delivery to high population density areas, but in most cases will be substantially cheaper. Businesses should recognise that they can offer that, or alternative courier services or parcel delivery services. The first
	message is that consumers should be aware that it is certainly worth contacting the retailer and challenging a surcharge that they are unhappy about.
	Good work has been undertaken by Citizens Advice Scotland, Consumer Futures and others to highlight the issue so that more consumers will feel that they can stand up and challenge a ridiculously high delivery charge. The Citizens Advice research was very specific. It acknowledged that many companies already provide a good service that customers appreciate, but it also identified that some do less well and that their customers feel rather let down. Trading Standards in Scotland has done a huge amount of work, particularly in the highlands, to highlight the issue to businesses and to help them understand and comply with consumer law.
	Obviously, consumers with complaints about a retailer’s delivery policy should first ask the retailer for an explanation. If they are dissatisfied with the explanation and think that there is still a problem, I encourage them to contact Citizens Advice, which can then alert the relevant enforcement authority so that there can be an investigation. Encouragement and help to businesses—but ultimately with that enforcement as well—can ensure that consumers feel empowered and confident.

Jonathan Lord: The north-east of Scotland and the highlands and islands have been referred to a lot in this debate. Do we know to what extent there is a problem for residents on the Isle of Wight and in Northern Ireland?

Jo Swinson: I do not think that the problem has necessarily been quantified for all areas, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. There has been a lot of campaigning on this issue in the north-east of Scotland and the highlands, not least because of work done by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and others, but I am sure that it is also likely to be an issue for island or rural communities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Michael Weir: Citizens Advice also looked at Northern Ireland and found that there was an average mark-up of 216% for packages, so it is not just a problem for the highlands and islands of Scotland.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If I may add an anecdote, I was discussing the issue a few days ago in the Tea Room with my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), whose constituency is rather further south than West Aberdeenshire. He reported the frustration of some of his constituents in Dunoon when they telephone to ask why something could not be delivered or why it was so expensive. Dunoon, of course, is most often reached by ferry, and that information is clearly in a system somewhere, so the customer service assistant would explain to the customers that it was because they live on an island, which of course they do not, even if a ferry is often the most efficient way to reach it. That could create quite a lot of customer dissatisfaction. The important point for businesses to remember is that an unhappy customer is far more likely to tell other people that they are unhappy
	than a happy customer is likely to tell them that they are happy, so it is not necessarily in businesses’ interests for that to happen.

Robert Smith: With regard to the Isle of Wight, it is notable that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) is one of the Bill’s supporters.

Jo Swinson: Indeed, and I suspect that is the result of experiences that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have had.
	I share the desire that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has for the legislation protecting consumers to be clear, simple and transparent. Those are absolutely the qualities that underpin the consumer law reforms that we have set out and that the House is considering in draft. The draft Consumer Rights Bill is a fundamental reform of consumer legislation that will ensure that consumers’ and businesses’ key rights and responsibilities are clear, easily understood and updated to take account of purchases involving digital content. They are modern rights for a digital age. The Bill that we will introduce, once it has been scrutinised, will contain new protections for consumers, alongside measures to lower regulatory burdens for business. The aim is to make markets work better, which is good for consumers, good for business and good for growth.
	I will just outline some of the core rights that our reforms will give consumers. I think that it is important that they are straightforward and in plain English. They are the right to clear and honest information before you buy; the right to get what you pay for; the right that goods and digital content are fit for purpose and that services are provided with reasonable care and skill; and the right that any faults in what you buy will be put right free of charge or that a refund or replacement will be provided. The first of those is central to our reforms, as well as to my hon. Friend’s Bill. I absolutely support the aim of transparency of information for consumers. The existing law and the reforms we are taking forward through the consumer bill of rights will continue to make sure that businesses cannot hide the charges they are levying on delivery costs and that they are made clear when the trader invites the consumer to buy. There is already a lot of good work on supporting compliance with existing law. That is positive, but more can be done.
	Under our reform of the consumer landscape, more enforcement work is being done by local authority trading standards services, with a great deal being done in the highlands. In Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of significant national and regional cases that cut across local authority boundaries. Of course, this issue does cut across local authority boundaries, and across the entire United Kingdom, as hon. Members have said. It might be worth involving the National Trading Standards Board and the Consumer Protection Partnership, which aims to get together all the enforcement agencies from different parts of the country, to see whether these problems can also be addressed at that level.
	The Government significantly fund much of the work on this issue and have allocated more than £1 million to enforcement in Scotland in 2013-14. As I said, trading standards services in the highlands have done significant work, with some success, because some businesses have
	eliminated or reduced surcharges for the highlands as a result. Others have made changes to their websites to ensure that any surcharges that they may have concluded were unavoidable are at least indicated early in the buying process, so that no false claims are made. That was all achieved under the existing legislative framework.
	A consumer will need to consider many factors, apart from delivery costs, when making a purchase. As required by the new directive, information will need to be provided to consumers on price, payment arrangements, delivery times, complaint-handling policy, rights to cancel, return costs, after-sales services and assistance, and duration of contract, to name but a few. All those factors, or in some cases only some, might be crucial for a consumer to know, depending on the person and their circumstances.
	I support my hon. Friend’s work on promoting clarity and fairness for consumers, but I am not convinced that extra legislation is necessary or the best option for us to pursue. What should we do if this Bill is not the answer? I have been considering what more we can do to help enhance transparency as much as possible, because he has raised genuine concerns highlighting a specific problem that his constituents and others are experiencing. There are limitations on what can be specified in regulations about the timing of information provided to consumers, because some of the legislation derives from EU law and needs to be the same across Europe. However, we can play a part in highlighting good practice and drawing it to the attention of businesses. The work done by Citizens Advice and trading standards services has shown that this can have some success.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend suggested publishing guidance alongside the new regulations that will implement the consumer rights directive in the UK towards the end of the year, because that will draw businesses’ attention to how important it is to alert consumers to extra supplementary charges early in the purchasing process. Some are already effective in this regard. In 2012, a study by Citizens Advice found that two thirds of retailers made delivery information very easy to find on their website. We need to use the opportunity provided by the consumer rights directive not only to draw attention to the good practice of those businesses but to draw attention to those that do less well. Two thirds is good, but it also means that a third of businesses are not making the information easy to find.
	I would like to give my hon. Friend a couple of examples of where we could take action to help improve the situation for consumers. First, I would like to draw the issue to the attention of the British Retail Consortium, which, as a trade body, has members that include, I am sure, many of the companies that are causing some consternation to my hon. Friend’s constituents. It would be helpful if the BRC considered whether it can encourage its members to consider what hon. Members have said and what it could do to address the problems. I would be happy to bring retailers to a summit to discuss the problem with my hon. Friend. It would be good to have a mix of attendees, including exemplars—businesses that provide information at an early point and that give alternative delivery options to customers. Perhaps we could also invite businesses that were not doing well but that have improved their game and made the situation better for consumers as a result of the work of Citizens Advice and trading standards. We also need to include offenders—those that do not give consumers the right
	information and for which the detriment exists. We could then have a discussion on how businesses can solve the problem and recognise their responsibilities.

Robert Smith: I welcome the idea of the summit. Bringing together best practice and those that need to learn and understand how to proceed will be welcome. My hon. Friend reinforces the point that online retailers need to be more aware of the need to shop around to ensure they get the best deal for their customers.

Jo Swinson: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister carries on, I should tell her that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. It is not an Adjournment debate or a discussion between her and Sir Robert Smith. I hope she is watching the clock and leaves enough time for other hon. Members to contribute.

Jo Swinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take your guidance seriously.
	I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. As he outlines, we can have a productive discussion with those businesses. It does not need to be rocket science for them. Some might have the problem in the “too difficult to do” box, and some might be unaware of how much distress the problem causes their customers in different parts of the country. By promoting the dialogue, raising awareness and setting out that the problem is not incredibly difficult to solve, we should be able to make things significantly better for the consumers whom the Bill intends to help. I hope I have set out why the Bill is not necessary to target the problem. The problem is genuine, and the Government are keen to work with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that it is properly addressed. I know that other hon. Members who have experienced the problem in their constituencies are keen to contribute and I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Michael Weir: I am pleased to support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), my parliamentary neighbour. The problem hits rural areas all over the UK, but particularly the highlands and islands of Scotland. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister say that she does not support the Bill—I believe I heard her correctly. That could be met with some consternation in a conference taking place in Glasgow this weekend.
	Nevertheless, according to Citizens Advice research, more than 1 million Scots face surcharges, late delivery or refusals to deliver when they try to buy goods online. Consumers in Scotland’s island communities face a postcode penalty of nearly £19 on deliveries, which is a 500% mark-up on the standard delivery price. Of the 534 retailers whose policies were investigated, 63% charged extra for delivery to certain parts of the UK, and 72% of the surcharges apply to consumers in Scotland, which indicates that Scottish consumers are disproportionately affected by the surcharges.
	Over the years, there have been attempts to do something about the problem. The Scottish Government held a summit—of the type that has been discussed—with
	retailers, trading standards and council officials to put pressure on retailers. It would be good if that pressure continued, because of the extent of the problem. However, one problem is that there is no consistency in how retailers deal with it—they have different delivery policies. For example, some charge extra for deliveries north of the line that runs approximately from Aberdeen to Fort William. Others do it by postcode, but that has ridiculous consequences. For example, many will not deliver to postcodes DD8 to DD11, which covers my constituency. I live in DD9 in Brechin, which is five minutes off the main A90 dual carriageway from Dundee to Aberdeen. They will not deliver there because of the huge area that some of these postcodes cover.

David Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not just a highlands issue. It also happens in the borders. People who live 90 miles south of Edinburgh can face the same problems.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is right, and to be fair, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made that point.
	We talk about consumers, but it cuts both ways; businesses in rural areas are also affected. Whether they are trying to get goods in or out, they cannot get couriers to deliver or pick up, so they are thrown back on the very good service that is currently provided by Royal Mail. It is, to put it mildly, ironic that this debate is taking place the day after it was announced that the Royal Mail is to be privatised, given the serious fears about the continuation of many services in rural areas. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said about this issue, those services may be under threat after privatisation and with increased competition in urban areas.
	One example of the difficulties is given in the Citizens Advice report. One business faced carriage charges of £15 for a £8 plastic valve. That is uneconomic and mad. The company tried to get the supplier to send by Royal Mail, but the staff said that they did not have time to go to the post office, which seems a bit bizarre to me. The company got quotes from carriers ranging from £9.60 to £34. Part of the problem is the lack of clarity.
	The report also looked at the main retailers and the views of their customers. The retailer trusted most by consumers was Amazon, because by and large it uses Royal Mail for its deliveries. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned John Lewis, which came in second, but way behind Amazon. If people order in store in John Lewis, it has displays giving the delivery areas. John Lewis will also deliver in my postcode area because it has a store in Aberdeen. All the major supermarkets will deliver in my area because they have stores nearby. It is about setting up a delivery system that understands the geography of Scotland, but many online retailers do not do that.
	When people order goods online, they should know from the outset what delivery charges they will face. Other hon. Members may be more computer literate than I am, but I can spend a long time going through the process only to get to the end and find that I would be charged a ridiculous sum that I am not prepared to pay. I hope that the Minister will allow the Bill to make
	progress. It is not perfect, and it would not reduce the charges, but it would at least let people know what they face in charges. It would be a small step in tackling a difficult problem for many areas in the UK. My main interest is Scotland, but—as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord)—there is evidence of a similar problem in Northern Ireland.
	The problem is not confined to delivery charges. A constituent who came to see me was trying to get an assessment done under the green deal, but was told by British Gas that it did not send assessors north of Dundee. The issue affects rural areas in many ways, and I hope that the Minister will allow the Bill to make progress.

Christopher Chope: This is an example of a private Member’s Bill that is well suited to raising the issue, having a proper discussion and getting a response from a Minister. I note that the Minister offered to have a delivery charges summit under her chairmanship. I hope that the promoter of the Bill thinks that that will be a sufficient reward for having been successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot.
	I do not think that introducing new regulations with criminal sanctions against those who break the regulations is the way to improve matters. Of course, by shopping online one probably undermines the viability of many of one’s own local retailers, and if we want to campaign for small shops in rural areas we do not necessarily want to encourage people to engage in online retail. However, I do not think that there is anywhere in the retail world that is more competitive than online. I recently visited a shop in Christchurch that supplements direct retail with online retail. The proprietor told me about a product called “Bananarama”. Unless the shop is the cheapest online retailer of that product, they will not make any sales. The proprietor showed me at least 20 or 30 examples of where the product was available for sale, and the cut-throat way in which it was being sold. That shows the benefits of healthy competition. If an online retailer is alienating his customers by not providing clear information about delivery charges, then he is unlikely to stay in business for very long.

Andrew Selous: Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House as to what is “Bananarama”?

Christopher Chope: “Bananarama” is a sophisticated form of Scrabble, which comes in a small package. I think the pieces are yellow, but that is enough publicity for that product.
	The Bill is an example of where people come forward and say, “There is a problem, therefore we must have more legislation”, but are we really going to start penalising online retailers by saying that if they do not provide all the information upfront as soon as the customer clicks on to their website then they will be subject to a criminal assessment? Apart from anything else, common sense dictates that it is only at the end of a transaction that one knows the bulk and scale of the products ordered. The retailer may offer a range of different products, some of which can be delivered by Royal Mail and some
	that might need to be transported by an elephant. It is only at the end of the transaction that the online retailer will be in a position to say what will be a reasonable charge.
	The Bill, therefore, is completely over the top. It states that the Government would have to introduce regulations, thereby transferring responsibility for drafting from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) to the Government. I just wonder how the Government would ever be able to introduce regulations requiring online retailers to include a clear statement of, for example, “a reasonable indication” of the total cost. What do we mean by “a reasonable indication”? Do we mean an approximate indication or a reasonable guess?
	The Bill is riddled with anomalies and problems. I have always been a great believer in putting bad legislation out of its misery at the earliest possible stage, so I have no compunction in saying that I will be doing the House a great service if I ensure that the Bill does not have its Second Reading. It is ill-conceived and the wrong way to address the problem. I do not represent a rural constituency, but there are a lot of online retailers and they do not want to be burdened with the excessive regulations proposed in the Bill. Apart from anything else, and as so often happens with such proposed legislation, it would be counter-productive. Clause 1 requires that the online retailer sets out what the charges will be. An outline retailer would be able to avoid all the burden of this Bill by saying at the beginning that it did not sell goods to islands in Scotland or England, such as the Isles of Scilly or the highlands and islands, or the Isle of Man. That could be counter-productive, because people who live in those more remote areas want to have access to goods, but they recognise that the other side of the coin of living in a remote rural area is that delivery charges are higher. I do not think that anyone has suggested yet in this debate, and perhaps in due course they will, that there should be cross-subsidy of those—
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
	Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 17 January 2014.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	PRISONS (DRUG TESTING) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October.

GENDER EQUALITY (INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT) BILL

Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

EDUCATION (INFORMATION SHARING) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October.

SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY IN EMPLOYMENT BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October.

HOUSE OF LORDS (MAXIMUM MEMBERSHIP) BILL

Desmond Swayne: I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
	Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October.

EU MEMBERSHIP (AUDIT OF COSTS AND BENEFITS) BILL

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very sadly, on Wednesday of this week an 11-year-old girl was knocked down in Bransholme in my constituency by an MOD training vehicle, which are used in large swathes of my constituency to train drivers for the armed forces. My office has attempted to arrange a meeting with the senior officer at the Leconfield base, where the training school is based, and I have been told that we cannot have the name of that senior officer. I do not think that that information is a matter of national security, and I would hope that you agree with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that giving such information would allow me to perform my duties as a constituency MP.

Dawn Primarolo: May I say to the hon. Lady that I am sure the House would share her concern and anxiety about the accident involving a child in her constituency? We entirely understand that she would be angry at being thwarted from pursuing her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament on behalf of the family, but I have to say to her that it is not a point of order for the Chair. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point, and I am sure that they will ensure that she is provided with that information in order to pursue her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.

G20 MEMBERSHIP REFORM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Henry Smith: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to debate the reform of the G20 membership. This is the last debate of the week, and the last before the conference recess.
	Unlike the G8, which broadly consists of the world’s largest economies, the G20, which was proposed by former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, is a forum for co-operation and consultation on matters of concern to the international financial system. It was formally inaugurated in 1999. It studies, reviews, and promotes high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability, and seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organisation.
	In the debate this afternoon I want to focus on questioning Argentina’s status as a G20 member, on the basis that it has failed on all three of the organisation’s primary objectives—namely, restoring global financial growth, strengthening the international financial system, and reforming international financial institutions. With non-members, including countries such as Malaysia, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland, contributing far more to our global economic well-being, one has to question the benefit of Argentina’s presence in the G20.
	When Argentina appears in British public discourse, it is normally in relation to one of the two Fs—football or the Falklands. The behaviour of President Cristina Kirchner’s regime towards the islanders is nothing short of disgraceful, and it is extremely encouraging to see the British Government supporting the islanders in the strongest possible terms. The Falklands, for obvious reasons, are top of our agenda when it comes to discussion of Argentina, but that issue should not blind us from other major problems affecting this country as a result of Kirchner’s belligerence.
	Kirchner makes no secret of her refusal to play by the same rules as everyone else. Let me start with a few examples. Argentina has expropriated the property of European companies. It provides a safe haven for drug dealers bringing methamphetamine to Europe. It is developing a strategic relationship with Iran. It deliberately falsifies its economic statistics. It refuses to abide by international court judgments. It refuses to pay its debt to other nations and institutions, and even refuses to honour the most basic laws of contracts.
	A major increasing concern is that of drug trafficking. A recent research paper from the International Assessment and Strategy Centre found that Argentina currently imports 30 times more ephedrine than is needed for its legitimate pharmaceutical industry. Ephedrine is a key ingredient in the production of methamphetamine, commonly known as crystal meth, which is a brutal and destructively addictive drug that ruins many lives on the streets of Europe and north America. That is not all. Argentina is now estimated to supply 70 tonnes of cocaine to Europe, which represents a third of the entire usage by volume.
	Equally worrying is Argentina’s growing friendship with Iran, a country that is a major strategic threat to the interests of the UK and of the west more widely. The Argentine Government’s blossoming relationship with Iran has been highlighted in the US Congress, and was evidenced recently when President Kirchner refused to allow a senior Argentine investigator to travel to Washington to testify before Congress on Iran’s role in the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association, presumably for fear of what the expert might reveal.
	Argentina’s refusal to repay its debt obligations, even though it has billions of dollars in reserves, sets a terrible precedent for other nations, such as Greece, which might be tempted to follow that path of irresponsibility. Courts have previously ruled that the Argentine Government needed to pay all its creditors, which is exactly the kind of sound legal principle that we in the developed world should uphold and support, even if the Kirchner Administration have chosen not to do so.
	On every conceivable level, Kirchner’s actions are endangering the interests of Great Britain. So what can we do? Following a public campaign, in which I was involved, the Secretary of State for International Development took the important step earlier this year of stating that the UK would vote against future loans to Argentina from international institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. US President Obama’s Administration is also voting against new loans. No more should Kirchner’s Government be allowed to threaten and denounce the international community on one day, then effectively cash our cheques on the next.
	There is more we need to do: other European nations must be encouraged to join the UK and the US. It is simply unacceptable for a country that is a member of the G20—one of the most important and prestigious international bodies—to behave in this manner. I believe that Argentina’s membership of the G20 should be revoked. The country has been named and shamed by Transparency International as one of the worst in Latin America—even outstripping Venezuela—for corruption, while the International Monetary Fund has starkly stated that Argentina’s Government are lying about their economy and cannot be trusted. We cannot, and should not, allow Cristina Kirchner to be rewarded with a welcome at the world’s top table.
	Argentina is an international outlier. No other country, including those in Europe, is behaving so irresponsibly in relation to its debts. No other country is in receipt of an IMF censure for falsifying inflation figures. We should stand up for the rule of law, sanctity of contract and respect for international legal and financial obligations. We should not stand with those who refuse to abide by court judgments or who steal private property. We should certainly not stand with those who ally themselves with drug traffickers and Iranian extremist groups.
	We stood firm on the Falkland Islands, and we now have a strong stance on international loans. It is time to take a tough position on Argentina’s membership of the G20, too. I believe that this issue is becoming ever more pertinent following the meeting of the group in St Petersburg, Russia just last week.

Alistair Burt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this valuable and topical debate. I will respond his points as we go along. I would like to say a little bit about the G20, its purpose and evolution, and our relationship with it. I shall then come on to discuss how we view Argentina’s role.
	This is an important debate on an important international grouping. The G20 is the United Kingdom’s premier forum for international economic co-operation. It represents over 85% of global GDP and economies from all regions of the world, and it balances the interests of the advanced with the emerging economies. The G20 also ensures that the views of non-members are represented: the leaders of Spain, Singapore, Brunei, Ethiopia, Senegal and Kazakhstan attended as guests at the most recent summit in St Petersburg, as did leading representatives of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD, the Financial Stability Board and the International Labour Organisation.
	Since its creation at Finance Minister level in 1999 and at leader level since 2008, the G20 has provided the space for key global economies to come together on an equal basis to discuss and resolve economic issues openly and by consensus. I believe that it can point to an impressive range of achievements, agreed by all G20 members, including Argentina. For example, in the midst of the financial crisis in 2009, the G20 trebled resources to the IMF to $750 billion, supported $100 billion of additional lending by MDBs—multilateral development banks—and took action to avoid a slide into protectionism. As the immediate crisis passed in 2010, the G20 put in place credible plans for fiscal sustainability, agreed to a moratorium on new protectionist measures and agreed reforms to safeguard the international financial system. Progress has continued in the last two years, too. In 2011-12, we provided much-needed impetus to policy makers solving the eurozone crisis, and boosted the IMF’s emergency funding by $456 billion. Thus the reasons for setting up the G20 include the coming together of nations to combat problems collectively, and its achievements are by no means small.
	Most recently, in St Petersburg, where the Prime Minister led the UK delegation, all G20 countries signed up to the St Petersburg action plan for strengthening growth and creating jobs, which contains all the features of the economic plan that we have been following in Britain since the coalition Government came into office. It also took forward the agenda that we and the Prime Minister set at the G8 in Lough Erne—the agenda that we call the three Ts.
	On tax, the whole G20, including Argentina, adopted the Lough Erne vision of automatic sharing of tax information, with a single global standard to be finalised by February next year, and with a clear commitment to show how developing countries can participate in sharing tax information and build their capacity to collect taxes in the process.
	On transparency—the second T—the whole G20 is now taking forward international standards on company ownership to help to ensure that people cannot avoid taxes by using complicated and fake structures. On trade—
	the third of the three Ts—the G20 extended its commitment to resist protectionist measures until the end of 2016: a hard-fought commitment that will open the way to more British exports and safeguard British jobs. G20 leaders also committed to show the necessary flexibility to secure a deal at the World Trade Organisation ministerial in Bali in December which will reduce red tape at borders, worth £70 billion to the global economy. As the WTO ministerial approaches, the Government will do all that we can to ensure that it is a success.
	Importantly, all that has been achieved without a formal legal basis setting out the rights and obligations of member countries, and that is for good reason. As the Prime Minister noted in his report “Governance for growth”, the G20’s informal quality, combined with its flexibility, has been its comparative advantage and its greatest strength. It allows leaders to explore the scope for political agreement outside the constraints of more formal, binding institutions. It allows the G20 to work within the existing international governance system rather than having to rebuild it. Importantly, it provides the space for key global economies—advanced and emerging alike—to come together on an equal basis to discuss and resolve economic issues openly in the spirit of enlightened self-interest, without the historical legacy of north-south divisions. Those features have been the G20’s greatest assets, and accordingly we believe that it should maintain its informal, consensus and leader-driven character for the foreseeable future. That has a bearing on G20 membership.
	The G20’s place as a consensus-driven forum where major and diverse economies come together on an equal footing means that there are no formal criteria for membership, nor any means of ejecting a member. Indeed, the membership of the G20 has remained unchanged since its beginnings in 1999, and there are no plans to change it. My hon. Friend makes valuable points, and he is right that we should strive for all G20 members, including Argentina, to be responsible players and to uphold their commitments. We advocate a strengthened accountability process for the G20, which will ensure that G20 members have stronger incentives to live up to their commitments and play by the rules. We also welcome the continued effective participation of non-members, international institutions and others in the G20’s work, while maintaining its efficiency. International organisations make a valuable contribution to the G20, and we believe that the G20 should continue to work with them in a transparent manner, respecting both those international organisations’ own governance structures, as well as their processes for dealing with members who do not fulfil their commitments.
	However, we judge that maintaining the space for leaders from key global economies to come together on an equal and flexible basis is central to the G20’s success. We therefore would not support more formal structures for the G20, or propose a mechanism by which we would eject, or seek to eject, one of its members. We would not of course rule out changing the membership of the G20 in the future, but any proposed change would need to have consensus agreement by all members of the G20, balance the need for representation with the need for effective decision making by leaders and Ministers, and retain the power of informality and political consensus that has been the G20’s greatest strength.
	Having set out the background of the purpose of the G20, the way in which it works, its informality and the lack of formal procedures, let me turn to the points made by my hon. Friend on the specific question of Argentina. I am grateful to him for making the Foreign and Commonwealth Office aware of some of the key points of his speech in advance.
	The Government have always been clear that it would like a full bilateral relationship with Argentina. As a country rich in natural resources, Argentina has the potential to be a key trading partner for the UK in the future. The people of the Falklands are British and wish to remain British as clearly demonstrated by the referendum held in March. We remain disappointed that, more than 30 years after their unjustified and illegal act of aggression against the Falklands, the Government of Argentina continue their policy of hostility towards the Falklands people with attempts to strangle the economic livelihood of the islands, and in their refusal to co-operate with the Falklands on a range of issues that are for the common good of the region. None the less, the United Kingdom continues to enjoy a healthy trade with Argentina, amounting to £1.3 billion according to the last count, and many well-established British companies currently operate there.
	My hon. Friend made a series of very important points. Let me make it clear to him and to the House that the UK is well aware of some of the deficiencies to which he drew attention. Argentina has taken a number of trade and investment actions which are damaging to business interests and which, in our view, undermine its economy by reducing its attractiveness to international investors. We are taking action with other partners to encourage it to adopt a different approach. The key point that I should make to my hon. Friend is that, notwithstanding the difficulties that he has raised in relation to Argentina, there are forums other than the G20 in which it would be more suitable to take appropriate action. However, none of the points that he has made are minor. They all need to be addressed.
	We have fully supported the EU’s action against Argentine restrictions on imports within the World Trade Organisation. We have also played an active role within the International Monetary Fund, alongside key partners, to ensure that any action against Argentina for its non-compliance with its data obligations under the IMF’s articles of agreement is taken proportionately and appropriately. The world must of course deal with honest and straightforward trade figures and other economic data, and it is the IMF’s responsibility to ensure that that happens.
	As my hon. Friend said, in February this year our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International
	Development informed Parliament that she had instructed the UK’s representatives at the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank to vote against all new proposals for financial support for the Government of the Republic of Argentina presented by those institutions. The same approach has been adopted by the US and other key partners.
	We are aware that Argentina ranks 102nd in Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index. We believe that bribery and corruption present one of the most significant barriers to trade and investment. It is estimated to cost the global economy 5% of GDP each year. We continue to push for G20 countries to set high standards in line with international best practice, and we encourage continued implementation of the G20 action plan that we agreed in 2012.
	Let me emphasise that the UK Government believe in the importance of a rules-based international system, based on collective decisions made in enlightened self-interest. We firmly believe that the G20, representing large, diverse economies from all the regions of the world, should work across its differences in the interests of securing strong, sustainable and balanced growth. It is for that reason that many of our concerns about the attitude of the current Government of Argentina to the international community should not be addressed within the G20. We believe that it is better to have Argentina in the G20 than outside. We may not always agree with Argentina, but we can use the G20 to sign up collectively to important global rules and standards, and still put pressure on Argentina through the appropriate forums outside the G20.
	We therefore do not believe that we should seek reform of the G20’s membership. The nature of the G20 as an informal, flexible group in which economies can come together in the spirit of enlightened self-interest is its key asset, and we should ensure that we retain that. As the recent G20 summit shows, the G20 continues to build consensus, strengthen the global economy, and make progress on our key trade, tax and transparency priorities.
	My hon. Friend has raised serious issues in relation to Argentina. He should be in no doubt of the fact that the UK has noted those issues and is addressing them, with partners, in the appropriate places. The G20 performs a different role, and it is through that role that the UK and Argentina will, we believe, develop a full bilateral relationship. That is what we wish for, and we believe that it will be very much in our interests and those of the people of Argentina.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.